About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

12 Replies to “does poverty cause crime? Jordan Peterson”

  1. I have listened before to an argument that inequality causes crime. That envy that turns into resentment that intellectualizes into judgement which dehumanizes their target which justifies their own sense of entitlement if only they were not denied those riches seen before them.

    Capitalism, which permits garage workshops, allows mighty corporations to fall. Not Socialism, which prints money to prop up the bubble to fail the children and their children’s children into debt.

    The powerful motivating animal-lust of Communism. Envy. Class warfare being the divide and rule to the peace that each status will be accorded to their need.

    Capitalism does not rob. Socialism dips into your pocket.

    “From today, April 24, speeding motorists could face penalties of one and a half times their weekly wage following changes to the law which will introduce much harsher penalties for the most serious speeding offences”

    A world where money does not buy you freedom. Your utility bills, cinema tickets and groceries will one day be paid like this: fairly paying your share. The People’s Tax. Unless you are a Party Official and it’s free, that is.

    • Don’t believe billionaires will pay one and a half times their weekly wage.

      It is only to stop people climbing the rungs of the ladder.

    • And the counter-argument to the “rich will always get away with it” is, that finer minds from a generation previous wrote laws back then because you also lose points off your licence.

    • Capitalism, which permits garage workshops, allows mighty corporations to fall. Not Socialism, which prints money to prop up the bubble to fail the children and their children’s children into debt.

      Thank you, Perfectchild, for so lucidly delineating why Free Market systems (when ETHICALLY operated) will always whip the snot out of collectivist strategies. That America’s financial and political 1% were unable to satisfy themselves with their lion’s share and, instead, chose to steal from generations yet unborn via TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) is something that purveyors of piano wire and lampposts should pay close attention to.

      What drove the transition from a culture of supposed mid-twentieth century “Robber Barons”—all of whom would have been deeply embarrassed by the current 1%’s naked avarice and unbridled greed—over to this modern horde of predatory parasites is something that the files of Hollywood psychoanalysts and the researchers who comb through them will have to determine on their own.

      While I do not always agree with Jordan Peterson in all matters, he is right with sufficient frequency and to such a consistent degree (two very different things), that I have a more-than-grudging admiration for his willingness to rip away the mask from so much of modern Socialism and Statism.

      Lately, I’ve been working to integrate GINI data into my own analyses. Peterson’s assertion that the correlation between localized income disparity and male-on-male homicide approaches unity makes perfect sense. About all that he left out was the observation that close-proximity residency of—or even just ready access between—highly disparate income brackets effectively (for those who are immune to moral issues) equates to incidence of crime.

      What I especially appreciated was Peterson’s unflinching connection of polygamy with violence. Defeated DNA can ignite particularly incendiary effects, especially within large populations of (surplus) fighting-age men. There is no better example of this than the preponderance of mass-murder amongst Muslim cultures. When taken in combination with congenital retardation conferred by the inbreeding that results from consanguineous marriage, any legitimate concerns about correlation versus causality wilt like roses in a blast furnace.

    • Well, that was my sad for the morning. I now need to watch a few funny dog vids to stabilize myself.
      “You never get freedom back.” I’m not sure that is true. But what is true is that getting freedom back involves a lot of blood and tears.

      • But what is true is that getting freedom back involves a lot of blood and tears.

        Preferably for the other side. This is, perhaps, the most difficult lesson which the West will have to re-learn. As General George Patton famously noted:

        No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.

        It’s time for Western Civilization to regain an understanding of why opponents to such fundamental rights as Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, and the Right to Bear Arms, must suffer to such a degree that they lose all will to fight.

        The West forced WWII Germany and Japan to lose their military goals and (almost miraculously) successfully urged them to adopt Democratic principals that have made them into modern economic powerhouses. Germany’s (recent and) precipitous decline into oppressive Socialism is an object lesson that merits separate discussion.

        Without a similar level of dissuasion that won WWII, the killing of today will only continue. It will do so until there is a sea change that brings about a level of death and destruction which deters all further confrontation. Again, preferably in the Muslim Middle East and not in the Western countries that currently are experiencing almost relentless jihadist attacks.

        Clearly, the Muslim Middle East’s preoccupation and obsession with death (on all scales) signals the necessity for loss-of-life to a degree that, not only defies the life-orientation of Western minds, but presage horrors that will shrink those of WWII into insignificance … concentration camps and all.

        As always, I am forced to include an obligatory note that the soon-to-arrive Muslim genocide is all too avoidable. Nonetheless, Islam will make this horrendous butcher’s bill come to pass as part of its inexorable policy of forcing all opponents to submerge themselves in the same ocean of blood that the Koran has prescribed ever since its inception.

        Finding some way to avoid this historically established (and currently inescapable) slaughter is something that would genuinely restore the Nobel Peace Prize to a tiny fraction of its former glory. Eff knows that Arafat, Gore, and 0bama all reduced this once-glorious award to the realm of a Cub Scout merit badge.

        • You are right, the neo-cons want us to nation build like we did after WWII but they ignore that we were successful in rebuilding Japan and Germany because we had just destroyed their nations. We destroyed their infrastructure and most of not all of their manufacturing facilities. We also weren’t afraid to rub their noses in the mess and point out that if they hadn’t attacked/declared war on us this wouldn’t have happened. The neo-cons and the libs insist that we win the wars as softly as possible and that we don’t destroy anything that belongs to a civilian. Then they insist that we don’t do anything to upset the enemy people while we are trying to rebuild their nation as a peaceful nation.

          Why should our enemies respect us when we apologize for killing the soldiers who are trying to kill us?

          • Then they insist that we don’t do anything to upset the enemy people while we are trying to rebuild their nation as a peaceful nation.

            Why should our enemies respect us when we apologize for killing the soldiers who are trying to kill us?

            I agree. The Left continues to ignore how America’s WWII success in Europe and the Pacific required posing an existential threat to Germany and Japan—with unconditional surrender being a key component of those victories.

            As I have mentioned elsewhere, Islam’s intentionally decentralized power structure and C3 (Communications, Command, and Control) network seemingly dilutes its threat because there is no readily identifiable nexus for any of these terrorist organizations—something that is altogether untrue, but, nonetheless, manages to steer Western strategic thinking.

            This empowers two serious deterrents:

            A.) Jihadists cannot be singled out for individual prosecution

            B.) Blanket measures involve massive collateral death tolls

            Both of these factors cause Liberal shrinking violets to falter because—as you so succinctly observed—”neo-cons and the libs insist that we win the wars as softly as possible”. Whatever the hell “softly” is supposed to mean. I’d love to hear what Patton would have said about winning a war “softly”.

            As the unofficial US Army slogan says:

            WE BREAK THINGS

            And, in the process of actually winning a war, one of things that must be broken is the enemy’s will to fight. To date, the West has done almost nothing towards this most primary goal.

            For one brief shining moment, America did manage to seriously demoralize its (albeit lesser) enemies. Please click on this link for a superb Cox & Forkum cartoon.

            I believe that both Liberals and “the neo-cons want us to nation build”. Clearly, almost no one in the West understands that nation-building in Islamic countries isn’t just a fool’s errand, it is doomed from the start. Time and again, Muslims have proven themselves absolute masters of ingratitude (see: Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq …).

            America squandered one of its greatest modern military victories in a most abject manner. After Iran and Iraq had spent eight years and slaughtered almost one million Muslims fighting each other to a bloody stalemate, the USA rolled up Iraq—one of the world’s largest militaries—in a few short weeks. You could audibly hear the squeaking sound of clenching sphincters in capital cities all across the Muslim Middle East.

            This priceless strategic triumph was fecklessly thrown away in an orgy of PCMC (Politically Correct Multi-Cultural) nation-building inside Iraq. It would have been far better to top off Saddam’s necktie party by pinning a trillion dollar invoice (collectible in barrels of oil) onto his corpse and then letting it twist gently in the breeze.

            A second notice should have gone to Iran indicating that they would share a similar fate if they attempted to meddle with Iraq’s political and economic recovery.

            After that, simply withdraw and have some hot buttered popcorn whilst watching the various power struggles that would have seen a huge percentage of young jihadist bucks snuff each other in fights over the throne. That’s what I call a “win-win”.

            Worst of all is that the West allowed Pakistan to obtain nuclear weapons and, currently, is in the process of marginally interfering with the trajectory of Iran’s pursuit of same. Just one nuclear-armed Muslim country is bad enough. Iran is a triple threat in that, as a Shiite minority, it already has a serious persecution complex. Secundo, the entire nation has a martyr complex that foments spectacularly dangerous military outcomes. Tertio, Iran’s contest with Turkey’s Erdogan—as per the ongoing power-play about who will be the seat of a new Islamic caliphate—makes Tehran’s quest for nuclear weapons into one of the most menacing strategic issues in modern history.

            Integrating these multipliers into Islam’s “all-or-nothing” supremacist and triumphalist calculus places the relatively minor political irritant of North Korea into proper perspective. When one pauses to realize that Pyongyang is a serious threat to stability in the Northeast Asian quadrant, the larger-scale peril posed by Iran snaps into sharp focus.

            However odd it may seem to praise the tactics of a newcomer and political outsider like Trump, having him at the helm of state—as opposed to a miserably ineffectual nebbish like 0bama and his sopping, milquetoast “strategic patience”—assures at least a minimal degree of pushback and demonstration of strength that is mandatory in the face of opponents who only show the slightest respect for savage, back-alley rumble schemes.

            Eight long, unendurable years of pantywaist, limp-wristed passivity from Washington DC’s Oval Office have won the West emboldened threats and increasingly less fearful enemies that will require even harsher and more brutal measures to counteract.

            All of which has brought our world infinitely closer to a nuclear threshold that useful idiots like 0bama proudly insisted they were assiduously avoiding. If only there were some way of holding accountable these blithering blathering masters of deception. Islamic taqiyya fades into insignificance when compared with the soothing, palliative, and utterly misleading pap spread about by the likes of 0bama and Merkel.

            • Just one thing:
              0 wasn’t simply a passive coward. He was on the other side. He served the enemy well. We’ve yet to learn the extent of the damage we sustained, but it will turn out to be severe. Count on it.

Leave a Reply

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