Jordan Peterson: The challenge of identifying the psychopaths on the Left and on the Right.

Jordan Peterson discusses the challenge of identifying the psychopaths on the Left and on the Right. He claims that the main thing these two groups have in common is not their ideas, such as wokeness.  It is their psychopathology. I created a transcript of this conversation below:

Jordan Peterson 0:02

I think that virtualization has enabled the psychopaths. Without a doubt, yeah, well, without a doubt, that's a terrible thing, because the psychopathic types, they're always the death of everything, like I'm seeing this come up on the right now. So imagine, imagine this. I've been working on a new, a new theory of political psychopathology, and I like it quite a lot. Is this

Joe Rogan 0:24

where the term the woke, right comes in?

Jordan Peterson 0:26

Yeah, well, Lindsay is pointing at that, but he hasn't got, he hasn't got the diagnosis exactly right? So it isn't woke. That's not the issue. It's not exactly,

Joe Rogan 0:36

I think one level talking about is like similar types of behavior

Jordan Peterson 0:40

he is talking about that, yeah, no,

Joe Rogan 0:42

woke just lets you clarify in your head. Oh, it's like that,

Jordan Peterson 0:46

yeah. But the problem is,

Joe Rogan 0:47

It's like, Antifa,

Jordan Peterson 0:48

Yeah, absolutely. But the problem is, is that that argument is predicated on the claim that the ideas are the problem, like the woke ideas, for example, on the right or the left. But that's not the problem. The problem is that four to 5% of the population, something like that is Cluster B, that's the DSM five terms, histrionic, narcissistic, anti social, psychopathic, and they have dark tetrad traits. They're Machiavellian, they're sadistic. That's about 4% okay, so the question is, how do these people maneuver? And the answer is, they go to where the power is and they adopt those ideas, and they put themselves even on the forefront of that.But the ideas are completely irrelevant, right? All they're doing is, they're the Pharisees. They're the modern version of the Pharisees. They're the people who use God's name in vain, right, as they proclaim moral virtue. Doesn't matter whether it's right or left or Christian or Jewish or Islam. They invade the idea space, and then they use those ideas as false weapons to advance their narcissistic advantage. And so then you have the problem, and the right is going to face this more and more particularly because the left had to face it when they were in powers.

Yes.

How do you identify the psychopathic parasites? 4% of the population who are clothed in your clothing and waving your flags, but who are only in it for narcissistic benefit.

Continue ReadingJordan Peterson: The challenge of identifying the psychopaths on the Left and on the Right.

NIH Muzzles Criticism of Israel

Trump admin is clearly violating First Amendment here. How did this happen, you might wonder. I'm starting to think of this as right-wing wokeness. And how did it happen that Israel has apparently dictated much of US foreign policy for decades? AIPAC $, perhaps?

Continue ReadingNIH Muzzles Criticism of Israel

About the Pentagon’s Purge of Doves

Once again Glenn nails it. And once again, I cannot help but see US warmongering as a jobs program for our $1T industry that needs to keep blowing up people, cities and countries, ignoring its abysmal track record over the decades, to justify its existence.

Glenn further commented: "That Hegseth of all people is deemed insufficiently pro-war demonstrates the extremism of the DC war machine. He's enthusiastically bombing Yemen; got Trump to pardon US war criminals in Iraq; has cheered multiple wars. But any reluctance to attack Iran is supremely heretical."

Remember when Democrats were the anti-war party? Now both parties are hawkish, with some exceptions mainly among conservatives. If you doubt this, think back to when many self-proclaimed liberals displayed Ukrainian flags on their houses and cars. In this Xeet, Tucker Carlson continues to be a prominent conservative speaking out against US militarism:

Continue ReadingAbout the Pentagon’s Purge of Doves

Our Disastrous Response to COVID in a Nutshell: Dr. Peter Hotez

Dr. Peter Hotez is a proxy for many other public health "experts" who got almost everything wrong. This is also an indictment of the many legacy news outlets that failed to do basic journalism and, instead, served as stenographers for US public health officials and Pharma. I'm patiently waiting for the numbers to actually come out, but I repeatedly wonder how many people died because this "vax," which was actually gene therapy, was pushed and coerced upon us.

In the following video, new director of the NIH, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya explains the dangers of ALL mRNA products. Follow that link to learn of the many ways that Dr. Bhattacharya was mistreated by the US public health establishment during COVID. He was the voice of reason throughout COVID. Despite his courageous stands during COVID, he was called a "fringe epidemiologist" by Anthony Fauci.

Here are the ways he was punished [from GROK]:

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford professor and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, faced significant pushback from the U.S. public health establishment during the COVID-19 pandemic due to his criticism of lockdown policies and advocacy for "focused protection." Here are the key ways he was mistreated, based on available information:

Censorship and Blacklisting: Bhattacharya was reportedly placed on a Twitter "Trends blacklist" in August 2021, limiting the visibility of his posts, as revealed by the Twitter Files in 2022. He also faced censorship on other platforms, with Facebook removing a video of him discussing COVID policies in Florida and Google "deboosting" searches for the Great Barrington Declaration to prioritize critical content over the declaration itself.

Targeting by Public Health Officials: Former NIH Director Francis Collins and Dr. Anthony Fauci, then head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, actively sought to discredit Bhattacharya. Collins emailed Fauci in October 2020, calling Bhattacharya a "fringe epidemiologist" and urging a "quick and devastating published takedown" of the Great Barrington Declaration. This set a tone for dismissing his views without engaging in substantive debate.

Academic Suppression: At Stanford, Bhattacharya's department chairman blocked his attempt to hold a seminar on the Great Barrington Declaration, and the dean of epidemiology circulated a petition to censor his speech on COVID. These actions stifled his ability to discuss his ideas within his academic community.

Personal Attacks and Misrepresentation: Bhattacharya received death threats and racist attacks following his public stance against lockdowns, particularly after the Wall Street Journal op-ed and the Santa Clara serology study in 2020. He was misrepresented as advocating to "let the virus rip," despite his proposal focusing on protecting vulnerable populations while allowing others to resume normal life.

Legal Battles Over Free Speech: Bhattacharya was a plaintiff in a 2024 Supreme Court case alleging that the Biden administration pressured social media platforms to suppress his views on COVID policies. Although the court ruled he hadn’t demonstrated direct harm, the case highlighted the broader chilling effect on dissenting voices.

Professional Marginalization: The public health establishment, including the CDC and WHO, dismissed Bhattacharya’s ideas as dangerous or unscientific. For example, the WHO Director-General in October 2020 called herd immunity strategies "unethical," indirectly targeting the Great Barrington Declaration. This marginalization extended to legal settings, where courts, like one in Manitoba in 2021, noted that most experts did not support his views, undermining his credibility.

Despite this, Bhattacharya’s supporters argue he was vindicated, as lockdowns caused significant social and economic harm, and some critics, like Francis Collins, later admitted to a overly narrow focus in 2020. His nomination by President-elect Trump in 2024 to lead the NIH reflects a shift in recognition, though critics still question his fitness for the role, citing his contrarian stance.

The establishment’s response—prioritizing narrative control over open debate—likely amplified the mistreatment Bhattacharya experienced, reflecting a broader intolerance for dissent during the pandemic.

Bhattacharya's criticisms of public health extend to the the mRNA platform itself, a criticism that is increasingly being shared among those who are not financially captured by Pharma

Continue ReadingOur Disastrous Response to COVID in a Nutshell: Dr. Peter Hotez