Jordan Peterson on Joe Rogan: 2023 Edition

Jordan Peterson always makes a great Joe Rogan guest, and the new interview they did last week is no exception.

Discussing the Twitter files, Critical Race Theory and Marxism, victimhood identity politics, postmodern theory, and falseness of reducing everything to power dynamics.

On the World Economic Forum:

  • “Globalist Utopian Tyranny” is a great phrase.
  • They follow in the wake of “Paul Ehrlich, in the 1960s, who really believe, really believe, truly, that maybe the planet should only have 500 million people on it.”
  • There then follows a devastating take-down of the immortality of pushing 350 million of the world’s poorest to the brink of death through higher energy prices in the hope that maybe 100 years from now life for the poor will be better. I encourage you to watch the entirety of this segment for that.
  • “It’s a little bit too convenient for me that your prescriptions to save the planet are accompanied by this insistence that the only way forward to that is to give you all the power. It’s like there’s a bit of a moral hazard in, that don’t you think?”
  • “Do you want to save the planet, or do you want the power? And let’s let’s put the second one first, because the probability that you’re a saint or the messiah is pretty damn low. So that’s the danger of the Davos crowd.”
  • I suspect I’ll be putting up more snippets from this interview sometime this week…

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    7 Responses to “Jordan Peterson on Joe Rogan: 2023 Edition”

    1. Steve White says:

      They follow in the wake of “Paul Ehrlich, in the 1960s, who really believe, really believe, truly, that maybe the planet should only have 500 million people on it.”

      Not just that it would be 500 million (or fewer) people, but it would be THEIR type of people. Starting with their extended families. I and my family must die, but their fourth cousins are good to live. Anyone with an ounce of brains should hear that, because if you’re not yourself at Davos, the odds that you’re going to be in that 500 million are pretty darned low.

    2. jabrwok says:

      “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. Power is what all messiahs really seek: not the chance to serve. This is true even of the pious brethren who carry the gospel to foreign parts.” — H.L. Mencken (“Minority Report: H.L. Mencken’s Notebooks”, 1956)

    3. Joshua K. says:

      There then follows a devastating take-down of the immortality of pushing 350 of the world’s poorest to the brink of death through higher energy prices …

      I’m guessing that should probably say “… the immorality of pushing 350 million of the world’s poorest …”

    4. Lawrence Person says:

      Fixed. – LP

    5. Kirk says:

      The World Economic Forum/Erhlich types all think the ideal population is a lot lower than it is, but the unfortunate fact is that few of them really know a damn thing about anything, anything at all.

      Say you do get things down to 500 million or so; is that population capable of keeping a modern civilization going, or would it collapse under the weight of its own contradictions?

      You have to have a certain critical mass of human minds and hands before you start getting things to work the way we like them to; a static, low population would probably wind up being incapable of doing much more than maintaining a slowly declining standard of living, as progress in the technologic arts and rate of innovation halt under the weight of just keeping everything going.

      The problem with these elitist scum is that they’re just like the assholes we’ve always had; the boni of ancient Rome ran their yeoman agricultural class into the ground, in favor of buying up and operating vast slave-run latifundia where there had once been small farmers. This had several side effects, which all contributed to the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Same syndromes later replayed in Thrace, which led to the decline of the Eastern; you can’t run things without those middle classes of yeoman types, in those sorts of economies. But, they were thoughtlessly written off by the idiots-in-charge, resulting in the history we have.

      Most of the WEF types have no idea at all what goes into maintaining their little Davos-centered bubble. There are entire industries and support networks for their lifestyle that they’re utterly oblivious to, and which they casually write off as unimportant. As with Erhlich, they don’t know what they don’t know. Ehrlich spent the 1960s and 1970s predicting disaster, which the idiot class bought into, and none of them ever actually materialized. It’s the same with the so-called “climate crisis”, which is a figment of the imagination as much as it is anything else. When it was getting colder, the assholes were claiming we were going into an Ice Age, but when it temporarily warmed up due to a convergence of climate and astronomical cycles, they all glommed onto the idea that we were going to roast. The solution has always been the same: Hand over more power to our technocratic overlords, who Just Know Better ™, but who really don’t. Nothing these over-educated and credentialed assholes have promulgated over the last few centuries has actually worked, which is why our inner cities that they’ve been in control of for much of that period look the way they do.

      These people aren’t actually all that smart; what they are is actually a sort of autistic idiot savant, the type that can do really well on the tests, yet who can’t actually produce positive results out in the real world. It’s all theories with them, and if reality doesn’t match their vaunted theories of everything, then, why, it must be reality that is wrong. Never, ever them–The multitude of diplomas from prestigious institutions on their walls clearly say that.

    6. […] and 10,000 traffic accidents, 700 dead, thousands injured in Cuba during 2022 BattleSwarm: Jordan Peterson on Joe Rogan – 2023 Edition, also, Japan, The Netherlands Join Red China Semiconductor Ban Behind The Black: Juno’s camera […]

    7. stan says:

      — Peterson doesn’t seem to recognize the difference between a state determining what curriculum it is paying for and approving vs. censorship of communication.

      — In the battle between those seeking ever more power for the state and those seeking to retain individual liberty, the tendency to censor is not equally likely. The left seeks to control everything, and they have embraced censorship. Censorship and control work together naturally. The right in the US is the coalition of those who wish to be left alone. They don’t have a tendency to censor. There isn’t any evidence that they have ever tried.

    Leave a Reply