Wednesday, 21 March 2018

Russell Brand and Jordan Peterson in conversation. Pure bullshit from both, stemming from narcissism.


I have always felt troubled by Rusell Brand for the years that I've known of him, and by Jordan Peterson for the months that I've known of him.

Brand: the problem to my mind is that his 'personal journey' is so central to his life that he loses the faculty of objectivity and can thus take seriously w*nkers, e.g. Ed Miliband, Jordan Peterson.

Peterson: is a pseudo-intellectual who simply provides fancy packaging for the far-right mantra that 'individual responsibility', not government policy, is what causes people to suffer.

Brand is all about the self, e.g. drugs, addiction, obsession, insecurity, meditation and concomitant 'new age' sh!t. And because, as a 'clinical psychologist', the subject of the 'self' is what Peterson also 'thinks' (masturbates) about, Brand takes him seriously.

Here they both are, w*nking each other off:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK2c45exQvw



Here's another clip. I haven't watched it but the title itself alludes to Peterson's fakeness:

'The problem with false celebrity'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuHjVvegRs8



No real intellectual would associate himself with such a stupid illogical title.


Celebrity is false in itself. There is no such thing as 'true' or 'genuine' celebrity.

Also, if you characterise something as 'false' in the first place, then there is no problem left to discuss because you have already identified it - falseness. The title should be 'What makes celebrity false'.

The title alludes to Peterson's narcissism and ego. He is himself a celebrity. But, although he is a pseudo intellectual, he nevertheless has sufficient intelligence to recognise that 'intellectual' and 'celebrity' don't really go together. But he likes being a celebrity. So he must find a way to square the circle. He does that by pretending that there are two kinds of celebrity, true and false (or good and bad). And then he can imply that he is a 'true' (good)celebrity, which is his strategy for avoiding discomfort about being a celebrity which, he knows, conflicts with being an intellectual.

Peterson is indeed a true celebrity (in my book), but a fake intellectual.

And that is the quality that he shares with Brand and why the two of them can hand-job each other - a couple of celebrities coming together to behave like intellectuals.

Monday, 26 June 2017

reply to Mark's facebook post


Mark,

You argue that it is unfair on those who don't go to university to pay for those who do.


Well, a favourite canard of the Right can be used in reverse: that's the "politics of envy".


But there is a far more serious problem with your logic, which is very monetarist, narrow-minded and misses the big picture. An obsessive focus on money always renders people incapable of looking at things holistically.

Firstly, you're making the false assumption that only the student benefits from his university education. That's absolutely wrong. The non-student also benefits from it. For example, the non-student benefits from the services provided by a large host of graduates - in medicine, teaching, social work, engineering, architecture, journalism, arts, ... . But conservatives and libertarians focus on the self, not society as a whole, because their ideology is individualism (' everything is about *me* ').

I'm in good health, so I don't really use the NHS at all. Other public services I hardly use include: the police (I've almost never been a victim of crime), the roads (I do very little driving), the rail network, the fire brigade, counsellors, legal aid, prisons, etc. By your logic, I should be bleating about paying taxes to support all those services for others, not myself.

But I don't bleat like that because I take the holistic view. All those services are needed for a civilised society. My taxes are the subscription I pay for membership of a club called 'civilised society'.

You keep bleating about "over-taxing", but that is simply another irrelevance (in addition to Dean Joel's irrelevant speculations about humans colonising other planets).
Over-taxing and colonising other planets are interesting theoretical discussions, but irrelevant because no one is even proposing either in the foreseeable future.

Labour are simply proposing to raise taxes to put us less out of step with others; and even with Labour's proposed increases, we will still be taxed less than most of our competitors.

Tories like to invoke the Laffer curve to support their argument about 'over-taxing'. But the Laffer curve actually supports Labour's proposals because it shows that revenue increases as you raise taxes. (According to Laffer, revenue is only damaged beyond a critical high tax rate, but Labour are not proposing to go anywhere near that region of the curve.)

Wednesday, 30 November 2016

Why isn't *everyone* most concerned (like Corbyn) about the least vulnerable in society?

I don't think Corbyn is very skilled, e.g. cleverness, oratory, tactics.

I think his electoral success just boils down to his transparency and his 'simple' values, which simply concur with the vast majority of humans, e.g. such (bland) principles as 'fairness' and prioritising the needs of the most vulnerable (because that could be your own mum or you yourself tomorrow).

Corbyn sticks out like a sore thumb in the House. Almost no one else there is 'simple' like him.They are all preoccupied with manoeuvring and positioning themselves, and they are all self-serving. They are completely detached from the simple values of Corbyn and the public. This was strikingly illustrated today: they overwhelmingly voted not to take Chilcot's report to its logical conclusion and hold Blair to account, whereas any poll of the public produces the diametric opposite result.

I referred to the simple "human" values of Corbyn and the vast majority of the public, which implies that our politicians are (as a group) mutants.

And that seems spot-on to me: just listen to the weird convoluted way they (double-)speak.

How is it that an overwhelming majority of humans can allow a tiny minority of dangerous mutants to rule and ruin their lives?

Perhaps there's something deep in the human collective psyche that fears freedom and actually wants dictatorship (by the elite) because that's less effort than creating your own destiny.

(It's late, I'm tired, and I'm just thinking/rambling out loud. There must be scholars out there who have considered these questions properly. Any feedback/references welcome.)

Wednesday, 19 October 2016

Trump v Clinton

If I can stay awake, then I am going to watch the final Trump v Clinton debate (0130 tonight). Missed all the previous ones.

This presidential contest is quite intriguing because it's entirely unprecedented (is my understanding).

I've seen clips from the last one and 'debate' is a complete misnomer. It's just a slanging match. It feels very much like watching a fall-out between housemates in BigBrother!