Who is really running the country?


gcarth Plus
15 3.2k 1 United Kingdom
4 Nov 2019 2:18PM
Just a 'footnote', as it were:
I'm sorry if I've offended any Tory supporters. I know I come across as a Tory-hating-left-wing-nut but really I'm well aware that there are a good number of decent Tory MP's (just as there are a good number not-so-decent Labour MP's).Wink
It's the Tory policies that I really hate. Sad

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Chris_L 5 5.3k United Kingdom
4 Nov 2019 3:43PM
I've definitely moved away from identity politics. I've got friends who are so left-wing they hate Jordan Peterson without hearing a word he has ever said, they are paralysed when it comes to issues around Islam, the part of them that is pro-religious freedom conflicts with the same part that thinks you shouldn't coerce women into covering themselves.

I can watch This Week and agree with something Portillo might say. I detested him when he was in government but I find him very likable!

I'll agree with John McDonald, Shadow Chancellor on some things. He seems very genuine, there's a good interview between Peter Hitchens and Owen Wilson and they seem genuine and the common ground they find is amazing. Can't help feeling that Nick Clegg is just a bit fake, just like Cameron.

Steve Bannon, the man credited with the success of Trump's election hates "Goldman Sachs Democrats like Hillary Clinton". Bannon watched his father lose all of his savings in the 2008 crash and there are things I agree with that even he will say. Even Trump doesn't talk 100% nonsense. I'm uneasy about Farage and Boris, they are very snakelike.

You should read up about George Galloway, Tongue he's conning you, he conned me once with his act.
gcarth Plus
15 3.2k 1 United Kingdom
4 Nov 2019 6:20PM

Quote:I've definitely moved away from identity politics. I've got friends who are so left-wing they hate Jordan Peterson without hearing a word he has ever said, they are paralysed when it comes to issues around Islam, the part of them that is pro-religious freedom conflicts with the same part that thinks you shouldn't coerce women into covering themselves.
Yes. I don't like cliques, clubs, elitist groups, cults of any sort. They can tend to engender an 'us' and 'them' attitude and general division in society (a bit like ephotozine) Wink
As you know, I'm not too impressed with Jordan Peterson. However, I do empathise with a good deal of his stance on Political Correctness. I think that he is probably sincere when he says he criticises both left and right.wing movements but I think he really is a bit obsessed with and more inclined to criticise the radical left. We probably disagree on that but whatever...Smile



Quote:I can watch This Week and agree with something Portillo might say. I detested him when he was in government but I find him very likable!

It's funny but I feel exactly the same way about him! Anyone who likes trains can't be that bad.Smile I love steam locos!

Quote:I'll agree with John McDonald, Shadow Chancellor on some things. He seems very genuine, there's a good interview between Peter Hitchens and Owen Wilson and they seem genuine and the common ground they find is amazing. Can't help feeling that Nick Clegg is just a bit fake, just like Cameron.
Yes, John McDonnell seems to be clear-thinking and a tough pragmatic character. I'm not sure how popular he is but I think maybe more people are beginning to respect his forthrightness.
I agree with you about Clegg and Cameron as well (We'll have to stop all this agreeing lark - it's getting contagious!).


Quote:Steve Bannon, the man credited with the success of Trump's election hates "Goldman Sachs Democrats like Hillary Clinton". Bannon watched his father lose all of his savings in the 2008 crash and there are things I agree with that even he will say. Even Trump doesn't talk 100% nonsense. I'm uneasy about Farage and Boris, they are very snakelike.
Well, I really dislike both the Clintons so I agree with Steve Bannon on that.but generally I dislike him just as much - he's associated with Breitbart rightwing nuts - and he's a scruffy b***er.SadSmile. I Definitely agree with you about Farage and Johnson.
Well, I think even people like the leftist John Pilger think Trump is less dangerous than other presidents or wannabe presidents like Hilary Clinton. He's definitey less of a wamonger than the Clintons, Obama or Bush. However, bearing in mind his nuttiness, I do sometimes worry he could suddenly be very dangerous...?

Quote:You should read up about George Galloway, Tongue he's conning you, he conned me once with his act.

Hmm. To be honest I'm usually quite a fan of George Galloway but I haven't followed what he's been getting up to lately.
I certainly can't understand why he supports leaving the EU. - I would have thought he would be savvy enough to know that leaving the EU would not give the UK more sovereignty but instead hand over our sovereignty to the US.
Anyway, I shall read up about Gallway and let you know what I think (for what its worthSmile)
Chris_L 5 5.3k United Kingdom
4 Nov 2019 9:58PM
Jordan is definitely sincere, even in the Cathy Newman interview they have fun and there's a glint in his eye - it was not his fault that idiots trolled her later.

The Canadian government were trying to compel how people speak. Enshrine it in law. JP was always happy to use whatever pronoun a trans person wanted him to use. He didn't appreciate being forced to speak a certain way by law, didn't think it necessary.

David Fuller's short doc on Jordan is pretty fair I think




gcarth Plus
15 3.2k 1 United Kingdom
5 Nov 2019 5:22PM


Quote:Jordan is definitely sincere, even in the Cathy Newman interview they have fun and there's a glint in his eye - it was not his fault that idiots trolled her later
Yes, there were smiles exchanged.
Chris:
I watched the Jordan Peterson video you recommended (which I’m grateful for – I found it interesting) and I also the video with Kathy Newman interviewing Peterson again – It’s a long time since I first saw it.
I got quite engaged with your video and so I made notes of some of what Peterson was saying.

For example: His thoughts on Political orientation being determined by biological temperament:
Left-leaning individual traits – they are interested in openness, in abstraction and aesthetics but
low in trait conscientiousness, dutifulness and orderliness.

He goes on to say that by contrast, conservative traits are:
High in conscientiousness, dutiful and orderly.
Low in openness – good managers and administrators, and often business men – though not very good entrepreneurs – who are almost always drawn from the Liberal types.

What! So us lefty liberals are open and yet we are not conscientious?
While the conservatives are more conscientious are even though they are less open lying bastards!?
Regarding the Kathy Newman interview, Peterson says that:
Radical Leftist ideologues are authoritarian. The philosophy that’s guiding the utterances of trans activists is the same as Chairman Mao i.e. group identity is paramount.

Why does he emphasise ‘Leftist ideologues’? Is he implying that there is no such thing as group identity among ‘Rightists’?
I would say there manifestly IS a sense of group identity among Rightists.

As I’ve already said, I find this man is definitely biased against the Left.

Having revisited this video, I thought Newman gave a good account of herself on the whole. Mind you, I'm probably biased because I find Kathy very attractiveWink Seriously, I think she's a warm person in reality but Peterson brought out her combative 'male animus' - Hardly surprising because he was provoking her. He certainly provokes me!
I think she was right to keep challenging Peterson to justify the pay gap between men and women.
He seemed to say that women should basically be less nice and more nasty like men and keep pushing for more. Hmm. So when women at the BBC or Channel Four etc. start cutting up rough and nasty to get equal pay and rights, I wonder if Peterson will complain about their Maoist group activist identity?

I haven’t yet re-visited my copy of Peterson’s book of ‘12 Rules for Life...’ but I did find much of it inscrutable on the one hand and too axiomatic on the other hand, depending on which sections I was reading. If I do choose to re-visit my book, I certainly won’t read it all again!


Quote:The Canadian government were trying to compel how people speak. Enshrine it in law. JP was always happy to use whatever pronoun a trans person wanted him to use. He didn't appreciate being forced to speak a certain way by law, didn't think it necessary.
Yes, I agree with Peterson on that.

I didn't intend to write such a long screed but I know you are interested in the assertions of Jordan Peterson. (and so am I - in a negative sort of way)Wink


Chris_L 5 5.3k United Kingdom
5 Nov 2019 10:15PM
I found his pay gap argument very compelling. That women take themselves out of the rat race, self-select because they have other life goals. That in boardrooms testosterone rules - he does coach women into fighting for more as a job.

On the BBC pay gap it's time someone said it's more to do with 'star quality' - the reason Graham Norton might command more money than Claudia Winkleman is because he's a bigger star. However Holly Willoughby might get more money than Phil Schofield (ITV don't publish their payscales though). Katie Price (Jordan) seems to get paid more to go on reality shows than a lot of men. Women porn stars get paid three times the money that the men do.


Quote:Why does he emphasise ‘Leftist ideologues’? Is he implying that there is no such thing as group identity among ‘Rightists’?
No I don't think it's that. I've heard him take on the right but there's not many people who honestly critique the left.

It's because of the reason he came to prominence in the first place, challenging a thing that was happening with the left at at many universities in US and Canada, it started with students who 'deplatformed' speakers because of their politics - instead of engaging them in debate, that angered a lot of moderate people who accused the left of behaving like fascists and of not allowing free speech. Then the thing at Evergreen where students demanded all white people stay home then before long students were trying to run the place, mocking professors for using language like "he" or "she" and going a bit nutty far far left - read what happened with Bret Weinstein - who is now one of our most interesting public intellectuals.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/when-the-left-turns-on-its-own.html

If you want to hear Jordan Peterson or Sam Harris rip into the right, watch either debate Ben Shapiro

The whole college campus thing went a bit Lord of the Flies it's very sad to see but we were all young and a bit silly once:





Chris_L 5 5.3k United Kingdom
5 Nov 2019 10:31PM
Also I believe that something new happened with Peterson, a man who has stood up to the far left and is mischaracterized as alt-right but who can appear on a popular left wing chat US show and get warmly welcomed by Bill's liberal audience !






gcarth Plus
15 3.2k 1 United Kingdom
6 Nov 2019 12:29PM

Quote:I found his pay gap argument very compelling. That women take themselves out of the rat race, self-select because they have other life goals. That in boardrooms testosterone rules - he does coach women into fighting for more as a job.
Fair point.
After all, there are plenty of alternative jobs like the Civil Service, where women are paid the same as men.

However, I do believe that in an ideal world, women ought to be paid the same as men for the same job wherever they work, but of course parity of pay isn't the only thing that matters, regarding equality for women.
The trouble is, I feel that the feminist movement often conflate equality of opportunity for women with being the same as men.
Of course, some women are similar to men and have similar psychological characterstics - that's fine - if they want to join a man's world, that's fine. However, I'm sure most women, as I think Peterson is saying, are naturally feminine in most respects and there is nothing inferior about that - the characteristics of men and women should be regarded as being complimentary.

Quote:No I don't think it's that. I've heard him take on the right but there's not many people who honestly critique the left.

Well, I think you may be right there. As an old cynic (realist?) I have noticed that both right and left radicals inevitably seem to end up fighting among themselves.Sad

Quote:It's because of the reason he came to prominence in the first place, challenging a thing that was happening with the left at at many universities in US and Canada, it started with students who 'deplatformed' speakers because of their politics - instead of engaging them in debate,
Well, I have to admit that I haven't specifically given Peterson enough credit for that (I think I merely gave him some credit for being anti-PC in general). Trying to stop anyone from speaking is a very dangerous 1984 route to take, isn't it.

We may seem a bit off-topic at the moment but then I would argue that the issues that Jordan Peterson highlights are very pertinent to the way our countries are run. (?)
Anyway, Chris, I'm probably prattlling on too long but I'll try and have a look at these new videos you've downloaded and get back to you later. Smile
In the meantime, I look forward to more of your comments - and would welcome anyone else's contributionSmile because this topic seems to have developed into a Garth and Chris critique of Jordan Peterson! Smile
Chris_L 5 5.3k United Kingdom
8 Nov 2019 3:49PM
The Evergreen video is just depressing, it's the kind of thing that spirals as people try to politically overcorrect each other, often virtue signalling and being offended on other people's behalf.

Before US politics turned nasty the Republicans and Democrats would refer to each other as "other gentlemen with whom we may disagree with on some issues". Sometimes a Southern Democrat could be more 'right wing' than a Northern Republican when it came to things like segregation and civil liberties.

We see well-educated, articulate and intelligent humans on both sides of most arguments. I always try to see the other side's point-of-view, I give them the benefit of the doubt that they aren't just being bloody-minded and there is a rational argument for what they believe.

It's hard to do on issues like climate change and religion as I think science and reason are ignored in favour of dogma. On economics, crime, education and health it's interesting to hear both sides.

As I'm naturally left-leaning I listen to people on the right to try and see where they are coming from. Guys like Jordan Peterson are mischaracterized as alt-right, they aren't. I agree with almost everything he says, the same with Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and a few others.

On the real right I find that Milo Yiannopoulos will make the odd thoughtful point but a lot of what he says is toxic and divisive.

Steve Bannon is worth watching just to see someone who isn't frightened to debate as is Ben Shapiro, Ben's a right winger who you wouldn't want to get in an argument with as he's got a lot of answers. I don't support these guys but I think they are good at challenging my views with well-thought out rebuttals.

I'm always on YouTube watching them doing debates, interviews / podcasts. They don't dodge questions in the 'Michael Howard' way that politicians tend to do.

Wasn't it refreshing to see Labour politicians answering questions fully and respectfully at conference and on Question Time. Best thing about Corbyn's Labour IMO.

Mr Shapiro (who I'm sure is only 12 or maybe I'm getting old)






gcarth Plus
15 3.2k 1 United Kingdom
8 Nov 2019 6:45PM

Quote:The Evergreen video is just depressing, it's the kind of thing that spirals as people try to politically overcorrect each other, often virtue signalling and being offended on other people's behalf.
Yes.They're so busy being PC on other people's behalf when they should be shouting and screaming about what is really offensive - the hideous criminal obscenities that corrupt governments are inflicting on the world.
These people at least have the luxury being able to live in relative luxury and comfort compared with people in Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria, etc.

Quote:As I'm naturally left-leaning I listen to people on the right to try and see where they are coming from. Guys like Jordan Peterson are mischaracterized as alt-right, they aren't. I agree with almost everything he says, the same with Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and a few others.
Yes: I think it is only right to be informed by opposing arguments.
I even own books on people with diametrically opposed views and natures to my own: I suppose I have a fascination with the dark side: I love reading about Psychopaths; Neo-Conservatism; Stalin; Hitler and the Nazis; Thatcher Wink.


Quote:Wasn't it refreshing to see Labour politicians answering questions fully and respectfully at conference and on Question Time. Best thing about Corbyn's Labour IMO.



It was refreshing. The Party needs to be rid of a few more 'Friends of Israel' traitors like Ian Austin.and John Woodcock.SadSadSad

I remember seeing Jordan Peterson on the 'Wright Stuff' but I'm grateful that you've managed to dig it out on You Tube because I would like to revisit this video - it's quite a long time ago and so I'd like to refresh my memory!
I'll get back to you soon on this and more.
gcarth Plus
15 3.2k 1 United Kingdom
9 Nov 2019 12:08PM
Chris_L

In case you're perplexed about the 'Wright Stuff' video that I thanked you for digging out, I've noticed that it isn't displaying any more along with your Ben Shapiro video but it was offered as one of the 'more videos' in You tube yesterday. So to cut a long story short, it’s quite possible you haven’t seen the 'Wright Stuff for yourself.
Anyway, I can recommend it and I've found it by directly googling You Tube. I found Peterson’s arguments there quite strong when he asserted how in Scandinavia, even when gender neutral policies were applied, society tended to revert to typical male and female roles.

The Ben Shapiro video was interesting: I think Shapiro was absolutely correct in his criticism of the likes of Clinton and Obama. I think his nuanced and partial support for Trump is at least more rational than Maher’s rather over-egged rant against Trump.
I haven’t done much research yet but I get the feeling that Bill Maher is at least a partial supporter of the Obama and the Clintons and if that is the case, I don’t see him as being on the left at all.
To my mind the only politicians that are even a little bit on the radical left are people like Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard.
These are the sort of politicians we need to run the US in order to mitigate the damage the US is doing to the world and in the same way we need to swing to the left in the UK in order to provide a fairer and more sane society in the UK.
I’m firmly convinced that too many of us have been propagandised to believe that this country is under threat by a “Communist” leadership under Corbyn.
This is arrant nonsense! Ever since Thatcher and Reagan inflicted US Neo-con policies on our nations, the UK and US have been skewed firmly to the right. I think both New Labour and the Tories are guilty in this because both parties perpetuated the Neo-con insanity.
Chris_L 5 5.3k United Kingdom
9 Nov 2019 5:03PM
I think Maher was very supportive of Obama, didn't like Hillary Clinton, but told viewers to vote for Clinton as she'd be better than Trump.

I've just seen the Wright Stuff, that Sweden argument is pretty persuasive. I find that Peterson always knows the studies, clinical trials and any relevant facts and figures.

I'm glad that you see Shapiro the way I do, he's good at what he does, good at articulating his side's views.

Funny you mentioned Hitler, I don't know enough about him or about the two world wars as I think I should know. I'm reading (actually listening to an audio version of) a book about Hitler by Laurence Rees. It's fascinating and horrifying in equal measure.

When I hear something I don't understand and don't know enough about I've been looking it up.

I had to look Bavaria up, I'd never learned about German states, I hadn't even realised how Hitler had been a First World War hero of sorts.I'd seen the word Bavarian on lager bottles.

So many people give testimony about Hitler's eyes and the unworldly feeling one felt in Hitler's presence - even before he rose to the top - also how hypnotic his speeches were, he was like a messiah to many, yet others never thought anything about him other than he was odd, odd haircut etc.

Just heard a bit where Chamberlain had said that "it was impossible not to be impressed by the man"; some thought Chamberlain had been hypnotised / brainwashed by Hitler.

I'm up to 1938. I hope we win!
gcarth Plus
15 3.2k 1 United Kingdom
9 Nov 2019 5:57PM

Quote:I think Maher was very supportive of Obama, didn't like Hillary Clinton, but told viewers to vote for Clinton as she'd be better than Trump.
Oh well, at least he's not keen on Clinton! Smile. I was delighted when Obama became President but was soon bitterly disillusioned and disappointed in him with his failure to close Guantanamo and his escalation of drone warfare etc.

Quote:So many people give testimony about Hitler's eyes and the unworldly feeling one felt in Hitler's presence - even before he rose to the top - also how hypnotic his speeches were, he was like a messiah to many, yet others never thought anything about him other than he was odd, odd haircut etc.
That's right. What fascinates me is that throughout the centuries, it has often taken just one man (sometimes a woman) to change the whole course of history. Of course, they can only do that through ruthlessness, mendacity, charisma, propaganda - and of course opportunism.
I don't think for a minute the German people would have listened to Hitler's insane rants if inter-war Germany hadn't been so humiliated and economically crushed. I wonder if there would have been a Hitler in power or a World War 11 if the Wall Street crash hadn't happened and the US hadn't called in all of their loans at short notice? I doubt it.


Quote:I'm up to 1938. I hope we win!
I'm not sure we have won! Sad Nobody wins wars and anyone who wants war is a lunatic or a psychopath in my opinion. The late Harry Patch, the wonderful WW1 veteran, said so eloquently that war is is just legalised mass murder. So why is it still going on???!!! It is this fact that predicates my repeated assertions that the world is insane.
Chris_L 5 5.3k United Kingdom
10 Nov 2019 3:00AM
I share your disappointment re Obama. He might have done better if he hadn't inherited the 2008 crash

I have learned so much from that book on Hitler and the war, you're right of course that there's no winners really. The Treaty of Versailles seems to have been too harsh on Germany and they already had hyperinflation prior to the crash afaics.

Today is the anniversary of Kristallnacht, the events of that weekend were truly shocking. The name referring to broken glass makes it sound like only a few windows were broken. It was far worse.

While the Nazi party turned a blind eye, the thug element would break into Jewish households and smash everything the people owned, smash the water pipes so the place would flood and be uninhabitable. The next crew would come along and beat up the inhabitants. I read about a son finding his mother crying under the debris, then finding his elderly father, beaten terribly and dying from his injuries. The sheer horror aside, the whole thing was hideously absurd.

I didn't even know about many of the atrocities that followed, the way the Nazis systematically killed disabled German people. Starved the mentally asylums of money.

It's easy to blame Hitler, the one man, for the plight of the Jews in Nazi Germany but before Hitler came along there seemed to be many thugs who were straining at the leash, seems he didn't need to persuade many of them. Terrible scapegoating and people turning a blind eye.
gcarth Plus
15 3.2k 1 United Kingdom
10 Nov 2019 10:03AM

Quote:It's easy to blame Hitler, the one man, for the plight of the Jews in Nazi Germany but before Hitler came along there seemed to be many thugs who were straining at the leash, seems he didn't need to persuade many of them. Terrible scapegoating and people turning a blind eye.
Yes. That is undoubtedly true but it I feel that only Hitler could galvanise the thugs and everyone else: He had such power of oratory and unearthly mad fanaticism. Of course, there may have been other potential Hitlers in Germany: He certainly managed to gather some pretty nasty brutes around him like Goebbels, Himmler and Goering, Eichmann, Mengele, etc., etc.

Quote:I have learned so much from that book on Hitler and the war, you're right of course that there's no winners really. The Treaty of Versailles seems to have been too harsh on Germany and they already had hyperinflation prior to the crash afaics.
That's right. I think most Historians agree that the harsh war reparations imposed after Versailles were largely responsible for WW11.
The Wall Street Crash was the final straw, I suppose.
Interestingly, Historian Dan Snow considers it to be a myth that the war reparations were particularly harsh.
However, even if that is the case - and I wouldn't argue with an expert - I reckon the German people suffered great poverty after the First World War, regardless of the imposed war reparations. There are plenty of documentaries showing people starving in Germany and I'm pretty sure that was even before the Wall Street Crash. However, I'm open to argument on that - I'll have to revisit my sources to check.
Our Discussion about Nazi Germany may seem a bit off-topic but I reckon it is absolutely relevant to present day politics: We still have concentrated blocks of unnaccountable disproportionate power assisted by complicit media propaganda.


Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.