Tyranny, one tiny step at a time - How ideology, group identity & collective guilt destroy societies

when people first encounter a complex topic like income differences it's it's like imagine you were drawing a map of the territory and you don't know the territory very well the first thing you do is just roughly sketch out the shapes of the continents and maybe you're wrong like the early European maps of North America you know you kind of get one coastline right you guess and the rest it's blurry and gray and then as you investigate more and more your picture of the situation becomes higher and higher and higher and higher in resolution it's hard to go from a low resolution representation to a high resolution representation and ideologies are low resolution representations so the thing about a low resolution representation is it looks like it covers everything but it doesn't the closer you look the more details there are you know if you get a three-year-old to draw a helicopter they put it like a little cross on the top and a circle and a stick in another circle and that's the helicopter well you know when you look at it that's a helicopter but no one would expect that thing to fly if you want to change that into a real model of a helicopter you have to increase your focus and concentration on every single element of the entity and that takes a tremendous amount of cognitive effort and sometimes you don't even know what you don't know about something you know I could say well there are 50 reasons why men and women's income differ well that doesn't mean you I can say all 50 of those differences in each of those 50 differences are fragmental into maybe another dozen categories each maybe there's 600 reasons why men and women's Sellery differ but you have to spend a tremendous amount of time paying attention and thinking to build your model of reality into that level of resolution and basically what you do is default to temper mentally influence ideologies they give you a one bit answer to everything why are men and women why do men and women's salaries different oppression it's always the same thing and it makes it makes you feel like you know something and people like that because they don't like the feeling that there's something they don't know they don't like to be in chaos that's basically chaos they like to be in order and or is where you know everything because the post modernist that's a philosophical community let's say believe that the entire point of human categorization is power and the dialogue between people is only a power dialog and that there's no real reality outside of interpretation and that basically what we do is exchange interpretive viewpoints to ratchet up our dominance and status and that's that and there's no biology as an ideology and the idea of the objective world is an ideology and science is an ideology and it's all interpretation all the way down like Turtles all the way down what do you mean by it's all about power okay in what way well you imagine that that there are groups of people who are competing in the world for resources I suppose and that it's a zero-sum game and it's every group against every other group and the reason that we engage in dialogue isn't to establish the truth or move towards some some closer approximation of reality but to structure this social interaction so that our group comes up on top right and that it that is really what the problem is with all this is that it's not just a matter of choosing to be defined in one way but compelling others to define you in that way well one of the most most awful elements of it I think is the idea that individuals should be defined in terms of their group by density at all I mean you could argue and this is one of these weird inversions that's so characteristic of this chaotic state that we're in when people originally started fighting against unfair discrimination and I say unfair discrimination because lots of discrimination is fair if you discriminate against people on the basis of their competence that's perfectly reasonable it's unfair discrimination that that constitutes the proper battleground for people who have a more egalitarian viewpoint but the initial idea was to eliminate the proclivity for people to be categorized according to the group identity because that was interfering with everyone's ability to view them as as competent individuals but that got flipped probably in the 70s after the Soviet state so who self-evidently was revealed as a catastrophe that got flipped so that the world was turned into one group against another power struggle from one group against another and then the social justice warrior types and the lefties even the Democratic Party started categorizing everybody according to their ethnic or sexual or racial identity and made that the canonical element of their being and that's an absolutely terrible thing to do it leads to in the Soviet Union when that happened for example when they introduced that idea along with the notion of class guilt so for example when the Soviets collectivized the farms they pretty much wiped out or or raped and froze to death all of their all of their competent farmers they call them cool acts and they attributed class guilt to them because they were successful peasants and they defined their success as oppression and theft they killed all of them pretty much shipped them off to Siberia and frozen to death and they were the productive agriculturalists in the Soviet Union and then in the 1930s in the Ukraine because of that about six million Ukrainians starved to death but the Soviets were big on collective guilt and all of these things that you hear about now like white privilege for example they're they're they're variants of collective guilt I I pick your bloody identity whatever it happens to be and then I make you a guilty member of that category and then you and the rest of the guilty members of that category are judged as a as a unit it's absolutely its murderous push to its extreme and we've seen that many many times and so you look at something like the idea of equity which is equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity on the surface of it it seems perfectly reasonable to say well if every resource isn't distributed absolutely equally to every group then the system is unfair and on the face of it that's a reasonable proposition but it falls apart under minimal examination so here's something to think about for for everyone who thinks that equality of an outcome is a good idea it's like why the hell are you striving for anything then because the reason anyone strives to better themselves or to develop a skill or to move forward in life at all is to produce inequality you're trying to rise above the mediocre masses every time you make an effort at anything and so everything that we associate positive movement forward to your positive motivation is actually an attempt to render the world more unequal now you're rendering it unequal in a just way right because we might say well if you work really hard you deserve an unequal outcome well yeah unless you want people to stop working hard and that was the old joke in the Soviet Union you know they pretend to pay us we pretend to work internment we're social psychologists are as a general rule very very cavalier about their about their concepts and that's led to a tremendous pollution I would say of the psychological literature the implicit association test is a good example of that that's the test that's being used to assess people's unconscious biases unconscious racial biases and so for example if I showed you a bunch of pictures of black people and a bunch of photographs of white people and then I asked you to associate a good or a bad word with the black people or the white people to respond after you've seen the picture if you are white and you saw white photos you'd be faster at responding to the to the positive words and so they've used that as evidence of racism but part of the problem with that is that you can't distinguish it from a novelty response so I mean most people in a given racial group are far more familiar with members of their racial group and the fact that they're more likely to associate negative things with racial groups that are outside of their racial group isn't something that can be easily distinguished from just a novelty effect but they make wide-ranging claims about the inbuilt biases in people and also and that's lent and that's lent impetus to these movements that are racing through corporations across the United States and governmental agencies where people are being subjected to mandatory unconscious racial bias retraining and there's no evidence by the way that that works at all in fact the evidence that there is suggest quite the contrary I saw this on one of your videos you were discussing how preposterous this is I'm one of your because one of the people that was opposing you was actually a part of something like this right yeah well the Human Resources inequity people at the University of Toronto have made mandatory unconscious racism training anti bias training and they made it mandatory for their staff and I found that absolutely appalling first of all it's political its political re-education so when you say but mandatory like this is something that you haven't you know I didn't have to because I'm not a I'm not part of the human resources staff okay but the people that they're consulting with to implement these sorts of programs certainly have faculty and students in their sights I mean these are these are trial runs for much broader rolling out of exactly this sort of of exactly this sort of reeducation with a methodology behind it and how has this been how's it's been vetted oh I don't think it's been vetted at all yes I just don't understand how it gets to the point where things get to terrible places one tiny step at a time you know if I encroach if I encroach on you and I'm sophisticated about it I'm going to encroach two millimeters I'm going to encroach right to the point where you start start to protest then I'm going to stop then I'm going to wait then you're going to calm down then I'm going to encroach again right to the point where you protest then I'm going to stop then I'm going to wait and I'm just going to do that forever and before you know it you're going to be back three miles from where you started and you'll have done it one step at a time and then you'll go oh how did I get here and the answer was well I pushed you a little farther than you should have gone and you agreed and so then I pushed you a little farther than you should have gone again and you agreed and if anybody is interested in this sort of process and this is a horrifying book if you want to read about how this process works you can read a book called ordinary men by Robert Browning an ordinary man is about browning was interested in how the Nazis trained they're there they're there they how they train people to kill basically and so Robert Browning studied this police battalions very interesting book so these were middle-aged German men so they they were they were raised and educated really before Hitler came to power so they weren't indoctrinated Nazis they were policemen and when the No Nazis went through Poland and then and then needed to impose their brand of order on Poland they brought policemen in they brought this battalion of middle-aged policemen in and their commandant their commander was by all accounts a pretty decent guy and he told them that because it was wartime they were probably going to have to do some pretty terrible things but that they could go home if they didn't think they were up to it so there was no compulsion you know this wasn't a Milgram experiment or or an experiment where you had to obey orders the guy who was giving the order said look this is going to be awful but you can back off but the guys thought well I'm not going to leave my comrades here to do the dirty work you know which is kind of a virtue in a perverse way and then browning details how they went from ordinary policemen to guys who were taking naked pregnant women out into the middle of fields and shooting them in the back of the head and they were physically ill during most of the transformation process you know they started out by what rounding up the Jewish men between the ages of 16 and 65 well you know you can kind understand that because you're at war and then well then they put them in stadiums and then well then they had to shoot some of them then they had to load them on cattle cars it was like one step at a time these guys were having a dreadful time of it they didn't stop they didn't stop and so that's how things get to where they are now is that I mean I know they're not at that point and I'm not trying to make the case that they're at that point well you're one of the first people that's sounding an alarm that there's there's a real issue with controlling people there's a real issue with controlling dialogue controlling the way people communicate and that these ideologies although seemingly innocuous they can take you down very dangerous road yes well seemingly innocuous ideology those words innocuous ideology those words do not go together there are no innocuous ideologies and there there are forms of pathological oversimplification and there are also clubs I mean I mean the kind of clubs that you hit people with as well as the clubs that you belong to the advantage to me being an ideologue is that I can explain everything I can feel morally superior and I know who my enemies are and you know what you're supposed to do with enemies they're not your friends right you move against them and you know we're approaching a situation and this has already happened I think more in the United States than in Canada although our countries are competing to see who can cross the idiot line fastest you're you're in a situation in the US where 50% of your population won't talk to the other 50% that's not good and I would say it's more pronounced on the Left liberal side because they regard everybody who voted for Trump as essentially as an enemy it's like hey people that's 50% of your citizens you might think about talking with them you know people you can't talk to those are enemies ironically I really truly believe that one of the big factors in Trump's rise to power is that people are sick of this oversimplification in this ridiculous ideology coming from the left like that this another system by the entity politic exactly and so they've chosen an identity politics that opposes the identity politics that they think is disgusting yeah and that's just starting it's just yeah just start that's right well if you teach if you teach one side to play identity politics de-facto you teach the other side to play identity politics and I've seen more and more people who are Center people as far as I'm concerned pushed to the right because of the continual insistence that by their mere existence they're part of the perpetrator group just by being a white person who is somehow or another successful you are a privileged person you're part of the elite you're part of the 1% you're part of the problem yeah you're part of the oppressors yeah absolutely you're an oppressor by being just too just by pushing with a home in the suburbs well it's also extremely annoying for people who've worked really hard and who've made the requisite sacrifices to become successful along some dimension to have that immediately attributed to their oppression yes and it's not it's not obvious that that's something we want to do it's like for the social justice warrior types out there who might be listening it's like do are you really willing to say that every single person who's accomplished something has done that as a consequence of oppression that's again with the Soviets claimed with regards to the to the successful peasants in the nineteen in the just before the 1920s it's like well the peasants weren't emancipated they were serfs until about thirty years before that they were serfs they were basically slaves and some of them had clambered up to the point where maybe they owned their hot and a cow and could you don't employ somewhat well the Soviet claim was well that's all theft you got that all because you're an oppressor and so then the Soviet intellectuals went into the villages and just imagine how this happened so imagine a village a small town where everyone knows everybody and there's maybe 1020 people there who are moderately successful ok and so you can imagine that those 20 people have like a hundred enemies at the bottom of the socio-economic distribution useless horrible people who are jealous and resentful about the fact that these people have been successful ok so now the intellectuals come in and say property is theft success is oppression and then they look for the people in the village who are willing to move against those 20 successful people while those guys at the bottom those hundred resentful jealous murderous people at the bottom they're just waiting for an opportunity to go kick down some doors and that's exactly what they did in the 1920s and as I said they wiped out all their productive peasants and then six million Ukrainians starved to death they had posters the Soviets produced posters in the 1930s that said essentially don't forget it's wrong to eat your children so whoa yeah whoa there's nothing about the Soviet there's nothing that you can imagine that's horrible enough so that it matched the reality of what happened in the Soviet Union between 1919 and 1959 and you know the West knew about this too early Malcolm Muggeridge in the 30s was documenting for England for the very English newspapers exactly what was going on in the Soviet Union bloody intellectuals didn't admit it to the mid 70s you know with the exception of people like George Orwell so why do these patterns repeat themselves what is it about human beings well we like things simple we like things simple so so and then you often like a simple explanation is a good explanation unless it's too simple but distinguishing between simple and too simple is no easy matter we like we like to know who's our friend and who's our enemy and we like the feeling of unearned moral superiority and unearned yeah that's that's the Boyar niche and especially when there's no such thing as earning anyways how do you think we got to this point where people are repeating these patterns that were ultimately incredibly unsuccessful and dangerous and deadly in the past like Marxism for example like people proudly proclaim themselves as having Marxist ideology one five one in five social scientists claims to be a Marxist kind of owner I understand the history what would once you fill people in on how that went bad well the estimates vary but in the Soviet Union between 1919 and 1959 somewhere between 30 and 50 million people were killed in internal repression alone so that's pretty bad and then and in China which was operating under exactly the same principles might have been up to a hundred million killed during Mao's time and of course ma was still revered in China appallingly enough and Vietnam Vietnam and Cambodia and wherever these ideas were implemented Cuba wherever these ideas were implemented the result was absolute mayhem absolute mayhem and I think what happened is that the Marxist ideas are actually quite attractive if you're an intellectual and if you're I would say if you're tilted towards compassion from a personality perspective because they're based on doctrines like from from each according to his ability to each according to his need and the idea that you should fulfill people's needs or that society should fulfill people's needs is on the surface of it an attractive idea of course the problem is who gets to define the needs and who gets to define the abilities and that really is a big problem and well and then those ideas were put into practice first in the Soviet Union and Alexander Solzhenitsyn who wrote the Gulag Archipelago did a very lovely job of detailing in in horrifying detail how those initial doctrines were transformed into legislation and then how those legislation was transformed into endless genocide essentially and almost destroyed the world let's not forget that partly with partly with the help of Castro who just died the the doctrines when when put into proxy in – into actual practice where murderous instantaneously now what happened there always apologists for the left in the West especially in France especially among the French intellectuals especially in the late 1960s and then when all of the information about what was happening is in the Soviet Union came flooding forward and that culminated say a nineteen boat 1973 when Solzhenitsyn's book was published the French intellectuals changed their tune instead of agitating on a part of the working class which was which allied them with murderous Marxists they switched and and started to talk about power and to talk about a group identity it was like a sleight of hand the underlying pathological philosophy remained exactly the same but the surface nomenclature changed and that became very attractive and at the same time the Soviet Union dissolved and so one of the problems I think we have now a perverse problem is that these Marxist ideas are very attractive to compassionate intellectuals and we don't have good bad examples like the Soviet Union around that everybody can point to and go yeah yeah well that sounds good but you know what about the murderous death camps and the millions of people who are suffering we still have North Korea but you know people treat North Korea like it's a joke instead of like it's an exemplar of a pathological system and people have no historical memory like my students and that's partly because they're taught so badly in schools is they have no idea what happened in the Soviet Union they have absolutely no idea they know a little bit about the Second World War maybe and of course people generally know about the Holocaust but they have no idea what happened in the Soviet Union so they have no idea where these ideas could lead and and as and the universities and the high schools are so full of people who are radically left-leaning that they're never taught any that students are never taught any proper history you know they're taught about the evils of capitalism and you know I mean it's not like it's not like any system is perfect but there's difference between imperfect and and consciously murderous so what exactly is going on with women's studies that you believe is fostering revolution well you go on their websites and read read what they say I mean first of all for the for the women's studies types and this is what would you call it false anthropology there's this idea that way back when there was a feminist paradise and that would be like noble savage mode of living where everything was egalitarian and and women dominated it was a matriarchal culture that was put forward by a UCLA anthropologist named Gambia Tess I can never pronounce her name property but I think I got it and then that was overthrown by patriarchal institutions start essentially starting at about the time say of the of Judaism and that was all overthrown and ever since then we've lived in an oppressive patriarchy and now that's what our culture is it's an oppressive patriarchy so they're pointing to one unsuccessful society that they believe existed or didn't exist no it didn't exist there's no evidence for whatsoever it's it's it's complicated but it's the it's the telling of a kind of psychological myth as if it was history whoa and and and anyway so so the basic claim is that Western civilization is a brutish patriarchy and that whatever positive things it might have managed to accomplish were all accomplished as a consequence of oppression and and and theft and that the appropriate thing to do is to restructure it from the bottom up and they mean that they mean that they mean every single bloody concept and you can marry that with modern post-modernism and throw in a nice dash of Marxism and you have the the ideological and motivated grounds for social revolution and just go online and look at a dozen Women's Studies websites just read them you can see what they say they produce political activists and their goal is to restructure the patriarchy well what's the patriarchy well the patriarchy is Western civilization and what is restructure mean that's easy it means tear it down and destroy it why because it's a brutish system that's predicated on nothing but oppression it's nothing but a tyranny and in the eyes of the of the radical women studies types heterosexuality that's a tyranny capitalism that's a tyranny democracy well that doesn't even exist and even if it did it would be a tyranny everything's a tyranny and so you can ask these and and what would they replace it with they'd replace it with their own ideological utopia well we've already had a hundred years of that we saw what happened oh well that doesn't matter that wasn't real Marxism that's what the bloody Marxists always say that wasn't real Marxism it's like oh how many millions of people have to die before you're convinced that it's real Marxism and I know what they mean by that – they mean hey if I was the Marxist dictator things would have gone a lot better it's like uh you should think again sunshine if you are the Marxist dictator things wouldn't have gone a lot better so and if you're the sort of person that thinks that if you would have been controlled things would have gone a lot better then you're exactly the sort of person who should never be in control

  1. why the edit at 6 minutes. murderous extremes.

    The 1804 Haiti massacre was a massacre carried out against the remaining white population of native Frenchmen and French Creoles (or Franco-Haitians) in Haiti by Haitian soldiers by the order of Jean-Jacques Dessalines who had decreed that all those suspected of conspiring in the acts of the expelled army should be put to death.[1] Throughout the nineteenth century, these events were well known in the United States where they were referred to as "the horrors of St. Domingo" and particularly polarized Southern public opinion on the question of the abolition of slavery[
    The massacre, which took place in the entire territory of Haiti, was carried out from early February 1804 until 22 April 1804, and resulted in the deaths of between 3,000 and 5,000 people of all ages and genders.[2]

  2. This is very important stuff. Ideology is how the masses are controlled, and new ideologies make waves when change is craved. True, inside-out revolution of individual consciousness, however, remains feared. Think for yourselves and let no-one déclare you a victim in your stead.

  3. Ya but Hitler needed Capital investment for his Army. He got that from the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, and the Rothchilds and Henry Ford and Prescott Bush, the Dulles Brothers who went on to form the CIA and FBI because they made so much money from Hitler.. their fellow Mason.   It was a phoney war a Capitalist SCAM. Government is a Satanic Cult Hitler was a Capitalist Through and Through, He based the second and Third Reich off the First which was the Roman Capitalist Empire. The Monarchy is the Problem along with Organized Religions. All Pagan

  4. hes speaks of Dostoievsky as one of the best writers and of Hitler as one of the best speakers and I just think he is at the same highth as both of them in what they were the best in

  5. Extreme ideology’s don’t work because lobsters won’t ‘do it properly’ they’re hard wired for self interest, eventually the guns come out and millions of lobsters die, when you give up on that and let them do what they want within a fairly legal framework, then the most clever and talented lobsters take EVERYTHING, leaving scraps for the lowly lobsters, it really is such a shame that that’s all we have to show for thousands of years of lobsterkind.

  6. Y'know what, I think Peterson should've got his own -ism already. The fact that he had metaphorically slapped all radical feminists who came at him into next week by basically explaining his superior understanding of leftism politics, has earned him the 'final boss' status! Maybe his philosophies in everything should be call 'badassism' (?), because what the hell man, he really is a baaaad motherfucker! What a genius!

  7. Its called " the totalitarian tiptoe" coined by david icke. One baby step at a time! Who started this 25 yrs. Ago! Peterson and rogan would be wise to watch his 10 hour speeches! Still being banned/character assasinated today.

  8. But don't forget that before the marxists take over the US is often supporting a corrupt, brutal dictator who plays ball with US capital at the people's expense. For instance, do you think when an oil company has massive spills in Africa it's a world news headline?

  9. Man, group identity is powerful. Now I understand why I sympathised with both Nazis and Soviets when I was studying about them, it wasn't because I felt sorry for them. It was actually because I was drawn to having an identity. I didn't even notice it at first.
    This is in my opinion why we absolutely need a Western culture to be alive, to have that European identity, is the only weapon powerful enough to combat evil, tyrrany, fascism, communism…

  10. This racial bias training is being enforced on all police departments across Canada and it is very scary……it’s a slow march to communism and collective socialism

  11. "In the Soviet Union between 1919 and 1959 somewhere between 30m-50m people were killed due to internal repression alone." Horse shit. First of all, the USSR was founded in 1922. The death toll during Stalin (1924-1953) was between 6-9m. 1m executed during the Great Terror and other shooting actions, 2-3m died in the Gulag system over 30 years and 3-5m were deliberately starved. The death toll under Mao was also 1m executed and 15-45m dying of starvation. It only helps Marxists when you exaggerate historical claims. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2011/03/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *