Cloud Hosting

The rot in the western world that has accrued in the last few years, revealed with particular clarity since the Oct. 7 attack on Israel, showed its depth in a heretofore unparalleled manner this week in Washington, D.C. The presidents of MIT, Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania appeared at a congressional hearing to face questions about the rise of antisemitism on their respective campuses (a phenomenon duplicating itself across the academic landscape).

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

I watched the event unfold with the same sense of surreal disbelief that has surrounded me more and more frequently over the last decade, as the academic world and the broader culture it shapes have succumbed ever more completely to the faux-compassionate blandishments of the radical left.

Well give the devil his due, first, as is always appropriate. The three personages in question were most definitely subjected to intensely unfriendly questioning, particularly by U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.). They were put on the hot seat, while their politico interlocutor performed for the camera, and they reacted more defensively, angrily, resentfully and counterproductively than they might have otherwise. However, the same Congresswoman was for all her partisanship rather dreadfully effective in exposing the depth of narcissistic, moralizing, malevolent stupidity that passes for thought in our apparently-doomed institutions of higher education.

I make that latter comment with no pleasure whatsoever: the six years I taught in Cambridge, Mass. at the pre-eminent Ivy League campus in the United States served as a pinnacle point of my early career. Harvard truly lived up to its reputation in the early 90s. The senior faculty serving there were the most educated and able people I had ever met; their junior counterparts truly the hottest young researchers and teachers in the world; the undergraduates reliably the smartest, hardest-working and generally admirable young men and women imaginable. The great university did its job, and it did it well.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

I watched the demise of the University in Toronto over the twenty years I spent there as a professor. Every bloody time the ever-expanding administration put counterproductive pressure on the faculty (hiring more Deans, Associate Deans, Assistant Deans and Diversity, Inclusivity and Equity commissars) the spineless academics folded. I grew tired of objecting, one painful faculty meeting after another: Why are we allowing them to increase class size; place more restrictive rules on our research protocols; implement yet another delusional and false five-year plan; eliminate all year-long courses; subject us to constant ideological training, conducted by self-evidently unqualified frauds; etc., etc? We could just say no! What could they possibly do? The answer I received was always the same: Then they wont give us what we want. My objection They dont give us what we want now was continually met by the collective shrug of shoulders that over two decades handed the entire enterprise over to the encroaching bureaucrats.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

And that was by no means the end of it: first, the administration took over the universities, massively increasing costs and decreasing efficiency. Then the parasitical and predatory woke mob took over the administration. It took decades for the first catastrophe to unfold, and mere years for the second. And here we are and where that is, precisely, was what made itself known in D.C.

Rep. Stefanik pushed the three university presidents hard, each in turn, requesting at least by implication an affirmative response to the easiest question to answer: Does calling specifically for the genocide of Jews violate (your universitys) code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment? To understand what happened next, in all three cases, it is necessary to understand that these selfsame codes and rules have been a veritable shibboleth of the moralizing activists the three presidents concerned so directly condone, support and produce. For years, a continuous clamour has arisen from the snowflakes, allies, Marxists, post-modernists and generally psychopathological neurotics concerning the absolute danger of speech that could in any way imaginable cause offence to anyone imaginable under any circumstances whatsoever.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

But now, suddenly, this insistence one that has already destroyed the careers and even the lives of far more than a few appears to be fully disposable, as long as the speech in question is calling directly and viciously for the genocide of Jews. First to prevaricate was MITs president, Sally Kornbluth. Demented smile plastered firmly on animus-possessed face, this dangerous excuse for a human being claimed, for example, that the increasingly strident campus-protester calls for intefadeh (a word derived from the Arabic to shake offas in dirt from ones sandals) had to be interpreted in context. I presume that the same applies to from the river to the sea.

Despite the stunned disbelief this demented utterance immediately produced on the part of the questioner and the audience the next two president-marionettes mouthed the same propagandistic and apparently-rehearsed lines: Liz Magill of U Penn indicated that calls for Jewish genocide were only bullying and harassment if directed, severe and pervasive the diagnosis of which was a context-dependent decision. Then, even more unbelievably and after being warned that her answer would resound around the world Magill said that such speech would become harassment only when it became conduct. This dumbfounding response would have stopped a lesser questioner in her tracks, but Stefanik remained on course, immediately pointing out that such conduct meant actually committing genocide. Have we ever witnessed such things in our lifetime?

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Harvards supercilious Gay fared no better. The question was repeated: Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvards rules of bullying and harassment? Yes or no? Gay allowed the devil himself to speak through her: It can be depending on the context. Now, it would be one thing if Harvard was the absolutely staunch libertarian defender of free speech that Gay was implicitly claiming (the only stance that could possibly justify such a response) but her institutions bottom-of-the-barrel aforementioned recent score on that front rules out such a possibility.

The true situation is in fact quite clear: there is one set of rules, say, for saying something mildly sexually inappropriate at a drunken party if youre a callow frat boy and another if youre a raving mad postmodern meta-Marxist hellbent on the destruction of the Jews. Gay was, nonetheless and quite mercifully, granted another kick at the proverbial cat. Rep. Stefanik, who was to say the least both shocked and irritated by Gays first answer encouraged her in a follow-up to state clearly the yes that would have let the Harvard ruler off the hook. She doubled down, instead, as all would-be tyrants do, repeating her all-explaining-and-excusing clich: it depends on the context.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

It was good ole Karl who split the world into two camps: that of the proletariat, virtuous by the mere fact of their subjugation, and that of the bourgeoisie, the capitalist owners, upon whose heads were heaped all the coals of fire necessary to burn their profiteering, thieving houses and hides to the ground, along with the lives and property of their families. Victims and victimizers: thats the world, and all you need to know to master it. History, family, friendship, all possible social and economic relationships (the latter deemed fundamental by the bloody communists): all can be understood, and immediately, in terms of the dynamic of oppressed and oppressor, the ultimate of classes and categories.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Pick a dimension of evaluation. Identify the oppressor (anyone successful; anyone with anything not owned or characterizing by everyone else). Claim allyship with the oppressed. Voila! You now understand everything, and have done all the work necessary to establish your reputation. Its a universal explanation, compressed into a single idea and more: a one-claim pathway to the highest strata of unearned moral virtue. Thats a deal too attractive to resist, allowing those who accept it to bask in their stupidity, glory in their hypocrisy and torture those they envy in good conscience.

The fact that such a theory allows the accusation of exploitation to be levied against everyone (as we all have something lacked by someone else somewhere or at some time), and that there is tremendous danger in that, can be all-too-conveniently ignored until the mob shows up at the once-accusers door, pitchfork and torch in hand. On second thought: Perhaps thats a feature, instead of a bug. The payoff for the dreadful simplification is just too high: all work necessary to understand the complexities of human psychological, economic and social function is no longer necessary (as a full explanation has been provided); furthermore, the goodness so long sought by serious contemplatives, mystics and saints exists right at hand. Mere stated pity for the oppressed makes you the best of all possible persons. And if that means to hell with everyone else, so be it even if that hell will envelop future you at some point in the now-thankfully-distant forthcoming years.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

I observed the spectacle of the university presidents with true dread. It was not only that they unthinkably, self-righteously and dangerously promulgated the most dangerous of claims: that power rules everything the very claim that justifies the use of power; the very claim that is put forward for precisely that purpose; the very claim that when sufficiently widespread (as it was in the U.S.S.R and still is in China and North Korea) turns everything and very rapidly to deep and endless misery. It was that they did so without even noticing or reflecting upon the fact that they were doing; without thinking at all about what they were doing meant.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The fact that plunging snout-deep into the postmodern meta-Marxist academic trough will actually turn you, if not into a full-fledged Nazi, at least into someone who will testify in front of Congress on behalf of those promoting the deadliest of hatreds toward the Jews shouldnt that have given those presidents pause? And the fact that it didnt, while they simultaneously refused to notice the fact of their own possession, showing no shame whatsoever for it, failing even to be concerned with the potential effect on their own reputation shouldnt that give all of us watching pause? Is the bubble they inhabit truly that thick? And the answer is likely yes. Worse yet, it is that pervasive, in the general culture: I dont believe for a minute that these women will pay for their sin with their jobs, even though they should clearly be fired, given that they dont have enough sense to resign in well-deserved disgrace.

And I should point out in closing that the same bloody dread doctrine that poured itself out of the mouths of those pathetic excuses for intellectual leaders and thinkers in D.C. also fully possesses the leadership of our current government here in Canada, our own institutes of higher education and, increasingly, all the minds of the educated class. Luciferian presumption rules everywhere and the pride we now celebrate (or else) for a month if not a season inevitably goes before a fall.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

We will look back on what we are doing with great shame. The Jews today, blind fools: You and those you love tomorrow. So it has been since the dawn of history.

National Post

Read more here:
Jordan Peterson: Blame idiotic Marxism for the demented antisemitism oozing out of universities - National Post

The Times is at it again with its strange fixation on Jordan Peterson. It has published over twenty-seven articles on the man, from an utterly shameful characterisation of the well-documented fact that people with autoimmune diseases are affected by food and thus often eat unusual diets as an outlandish tale, to the most recent case of its radio discussion on Petersons talk at the O2 last month.

What is so striking about its conversation was just how clear its disregard for the public was. The contributors were shocked that people were willing to engage with let alone capable of engaging with a philosopher. The conversation began with Matt Chorley saying: I mean, a philosopher selling out the O2 was it sold out? This attitude reveals that the public are seen as dim and apathetic. Whilst this could be forgiven as an off-hand comment, it cannot be in light of what followed from the other panellists.

Take James Marriott for instance who, despite being a talented writer, stated that when he learnt of the event, he thought, what on Earth is going on?, will it be sold out? and can it even work, a guy giving a talk?. This grossly underestimates common people, especially in their mystifiedrealisation that the public had an attention span which surpasses three whole hours.

Behind all of this lurks fear of the old medias loss of status

Coupled with the classist ignorance of the common mans intellectual acumen was active disdain. Marriotts explanation that one of the other speakers is a popular Youtuber was soon accompanied by a deep sigh from Rachel Sylvester adding to her colleagues lack of regard for the publics interest in highbrow subjects, a snooty sense of superiority that they take a Youtuber seriously. How could they? Why, its unlikely that he even attended Oxbridge!

This was quite ironic from a journalist whose main contribution to the debate was to repeatedly interject with her brilliant and subtle observation that the panel was all men. Well, that is not entirely fair she did also present the perceptive critique of Petersons philosophy as being mumbo jumbo.

What this again illustrates is an insufferable arrogance towards the public. How dare an audience composed nearly equally of men and women not see the clear misogyny?

The lack of self-reflection amongst the panel was also very telling. Marriott revealed that what he expected of the audience was not the normal crowd of people he found, but isolated, slightly dangerous young men which is in keeping with the papers references to Peterson as an alt-right darling. Rather than take a moment to reflect upon how their assumptions were so catastrophically wrong, and that they had been smearing hundreds of thousands of people maybe, just maybe there is something to learn from Petersons popularity that they have missed they instead labelled the normalness of the crowd disturbing.

No pleasure was taken at the fact that the public surpassed their condescending expectations and that even the glamorous girls with platinum blonde hair are part of a re-emergent and vibrant public political culture. Did they consider that maybe if these speakers are attracting mainstream appeal, they are not as extreme as they might have thought? No, the speakers were still strange alt-right celebrities and the audience, in applauding the speakers at an event they paid for, was ludicrously said to resemble a scene out of North Korea.

Behind all of this lurks fear of the old medias loss of status. Marriott lamented how one hopes that columnists are still the centre of the world. Tongue in cheek? Perhaps. Still, when The Times is producing commentary which is not just out of touch with the wider public but (looking at the comments on their articles on Peterson) consistently ridiculed by their own readership, it is no wonder that they arent.

The radio segment and to a lesser extent its source article are illustrative of everything that is wrong with the current media discourse. They look down on the audience, not just in tone but in the substance of what is being discussed.

What could have been a genuine critique of Petersons world-view was instead replaced by an unprepared Chorley asking questions like was it just him [Peterson] speaking, comparisons of Peterson to Kermit the Frog, long-since stale identity politics, and an irrelevant interlude about how Marriott is reading a book on the Roman Empire (which I suppose is intended to make him appear smart).

The public, rather than being too dumb for a talk on philosophy, are too smart to be satisfied with such cursory content. Perhaps this is why a freely available four-minute discussion online could barely muster a tenth of the views that Petersons three-hour paid lecture did.

Follow this link:
Jordan Peterson and the condescension of Times columnists | Ethan Green - The Critic

Matt Rife is in the dog house with his mostly female fanbase, so, to save his career, hes asking for help from a figure who earned massive online success without a single woman fan Jordan Peterson.

Just weeks ago,Rife commanded one of the largest and most fervent following of women in the online comedy community. With his (possibly literally) sculpted jawline, his impressive physique and his enthusiasm for suggestive interactions with fans, Rife was equally beloved by Gen Z girls as he was by their mothers and grandmothers. However, in his debut Netflix special,Natural Selection, which skyrocketed to the top of the charts upon its November 10th release, Rife made a deliberate effort to distance himself from the pretty boy persona that turned off many male comedy fans from taking the Ohio-born social media star seriously. Rife infamously opened the special with a Nothing, you already told her twice-esque joke about domestic violence, which sparked media controversy and blowback from women in his fandom who felt betrayed by his sudden and intentional heel-turn towards insipid, unoriginal dude-bro comedy.

Over the weekend, Rife appeared on the podcast of a popular figure in the manosphere, a corner of the outrage-driven internet where Rife clearly believes he belongs. Peterson, an author, commentator and psychologist who represents the pseudo-intellectual spearhead of the alt-rights culture warriors, embraced Rife for refusing to back down to his detractors bysarcastically posting an apology with a link to a special-needs helmet store. Peterson described Rifes reaction to his critics as a witty, fast, brave and appropriate response to the situation and you can tell that Peterson really believes that Rife is hilarious by how his assessment of the joke has the seriousness of a eulogy.

I thought the joke was funny risky, and funny and I thought your response was dead on, Peterson told Rife with a stern scowl splashed across his face. The controversial conservative commentator declared that Rife had been canceled, using the comics situation as a microcosm for the issues of censorship and sensitivity that Peterson has spent the last decade complaining about on the internet. While describing Rife as a profoundly persecuted martyr, Peterson called the controversy a tempest in a teapot and wished that Rifes idiot accusers would all pass away and spend eternity in hell composed of nothing but people like them talking to them.

Rife said of his controversial opening bit onNatural Selection, Its a modern twist on an old joke, claiming, I wanted to put my own spin on it with it being the tired copy/pasted gag where a woman is beaten and a man says that she deserved it for failing some household duty, sometimes calling her a broken down dishwasher. Rife characterized his style as high risk, high reward, a point with which Peterson emphatically agreed on the grounds that the woke mob now wages war on the comic as the result of the courageous risks he takes. At the time of publication,Natural Selectionis still streaming on Netflix and Rife is not imprisoned for charges of being too provocative.

Of course, the real problem with the bit that Rife and Peterson dissected with all the humor and playfulness of a deposition is self-evident by the comics failure to inspire so much as a smile from his host the joke just wasn't funny. Much like Rifes ensuing promotional tour on the alt-right podcast circuit, Natural Selection was a cynical attempt to rebrand Rife as a guys guy comic worthy of the grift that Peterson and his fellow podcasters in the comedy world continue to exploit for massive financial gain. Whether onstage or on Petersons show, Rifes problem is that he isnt trying to make people laugh hes trying to pander to a specific group whom he sees as his path to greater success than he had with his former female following.

At no point was this more obvious than when Peterson asked Rife why he reached out to the alt-right psychologist to organize an appearance on the show. Rife replied, Im a huge fan, man. Listen, you and I have never met, and Ill be truthfully honest, I havent done extensive research into everything youve done. But I find you to be a very kind man, and very well spoken, and someone who stands on their morals and the realism of society today. And I think that is incredibly rare. Despite being a huge fan, Rife couldnt even be bothered to do his research about his host while maneuvering to access his platform of potential you just cant joke about anything nowadays comedy fans. Rifes move to appear on Petersons podcast stinks like another lazy, calculated attempt to earn the aesthetic of edginess without doing any of the intellectual work to actually push boundaries.

For that reason, I fully expect the scheme to pay off and for Peterson fans to rally behind Rife in his new phase as the most popular incel-adjacent comic in podcasting. Peterson can teach Rife plenty about pandering to angry, lonely men on the internet, even if he cant connect to Rifes past of ever once enjoying the affection of women.

View post:
Matt Rife Is Such A Great Comic That He Needs Jordan Peterson to Explain Why Hes Funny - Cracked.com