I love your honesty and humility, Celia. Your willingness to reconsider preconceptions in light of new evidence keeps you from stagnating and falling into the traps that frequently ensnare the close-minded.
I don’t like to speculate about whether someone is controlled opposition without evidence (which can rarely be found), and I generally follow Aisling O’Loughlin’s strategy (without knowing it existed until reading this article).
I don’t think Jordan Peterson is intentionally controlled, but he is serving that purpose nevertheless. I think he is emotionally and psychologically fragile, and his judgment has been impaired accordingly.
I lost respect for him when he failed to see the glaring totalitarianism he had been warning about for years—despite having recommended a litany of books that should have equipped anyone paying attention to recognize the signs.
Still, I have him to thank for nudging me to prioritize the reading of books I consider part of my essential reading list now, from Christopher Browning’s “Ordinary Men” to Orwell’s “Road to Wigan Pier” to Solzhenitsyn’s “Gulag Archipelago.” And for that, I remain grateful.
He needs to publicly repent and apologize for gaining crucial fame and wealth on his "comeback tour" by using venues that forced his audiences to get vaxxed, Until he does, I invoke the self-righteous moral Judgement he's always invoking to condemn others by.
I, too, lost respect for him when - after years of hearing him dismantle totalitarianism and giving evidence of it's destructive end - he fell like a rock into the vaccine stream.
I control the volume, though, and when he is talking about something I am interested in I can turn it up, if he is whimpering and tearing up about something pathetic I turn him down or off, I mean, "benzos"? Seriously? What kind of a shitty psychiatrist do you need to be to think that is a remedy for anything. We have a great deal of control in what we allow into our heads.
Lots of good people fell into the vaccine stream. It doesn't make them "controlled opposition" it makes them trusting of a system that they'd been programmed from infancy to have implicit trust in.
Yes, people did allow their life-long trust to lead them into the stream. Shame on those who took advantage of that trust. But, JP, spent a lot of time and airspace pointing out the dangers of totalitarianism BEFORE we became glued to the ground by it. He, JP, should have know better. The signs were clear for anyone who had spent even a small amount of time delving into the Socialist methodology as he claims to have. Trust is a very precious thing, though, and I hope we all learned our lesson about being prodigious with it. As for "controlled opposition", while I get what it means, I am utterly ignorant of who is or isn't. Haven't a clue...
I agree Amy. SO TIRED of making excused for multi-millionaire intellectuals, famosos, influencers, various wizards, paid to KNOW something…but somehow did not understand. Covid. I'm very intolerant as well. They should have known. Peter Duesberg had been in the culture by them for 33 years!
Yep. Until I see him publicly weeping in agony like Jimmy Swaggart over his slavish support of the vaccine (and benefiting by it when he did his comeback tour in venues that forced audiences to be injected), I will not take him seriously.
Valid point ET but surely this hasn't been the case in JPs instance. He'd been fully aware and sounding warnings about the "traps of totalitarianism".He's not the average Joe. And, about the Vax, one would think that, given his experience with "benzos" he would be more aware of medical solutions.
I'm genuinely bemused, as I often am, by these claims of "controlled opposition", it has become the "safe and effective" of the freedom movement.
Delingpole thinks that JP is actually intentionally shilling for the globalists? If you tell me he's wrong, he's lost it, he's misguided, he's accidentally putting the young men into a pen and he is allowed (and maybe given help) to flourish because the globalists like this mistake he's making and so on, I get can on board with this. I've stopped listening to him myself long ago.
But rather like Brand, he is a man obviously trying to speak the truth and not someone who will read from a script to please the globalists. This seems obvious to me. So, genuine question - which is it? Is it that he is fed his lines and talking points by the globalists, or do they allow him to keep in the limelight because his attempts at speaking his truth are actually helping them fracture the Right?
And if it's the first, can someone give a concrete example of him speaking lines he doesn't believe and was fed by someone else?
I think there’s a fair bit of ego wrapped up in the expensive suits.
His comment about getting the damn vaxx did it for me. Don’t care how many disclaimers you add, you’re just as bad as the authoritarians you claim to be against. BTW Glad the carnivore is working for you. You may find at some point when you feel much better that introducing low lectin, low oxylate carbs may work. Hope you find a good functional medicine doc! Love your writing!
Yeah, like "get the damn vaxx", there's world to be saved, engagements and travelling lol, then getting upset with the con. Not exactly would've become homeless and for someone of his intellectual stature he showed utter lack of discern/thinking clearly process. And when you have a cold/sober look and analize the rest...I used to be a huge fan but he lost me for good.
Hey John, these concepts of controlled opposition and limited hangout are actually quite complex to get your head around. It took me years to truely understand them. Once you understand the depth of the concept it becomes obvious that, whether they know it or not, Brand, Peterson, Tate, Rogan et al are all controlled opposition. They are hearders. How easy would it be for Google and YouTube to dissappear these guys in to obscurity if they really wanted to. The fact that they don't and they haven't should tell you all you need to know.
"whether they know it or not, Brand, Peterson, Tate, Rogan et al are all controlled opposition"
It makes no sense to me to not make that distinction. That is exactly what I'm asking and what I explicitly asked, does he "know it or not"? Because we need two terms. One is like a double agent, and one is allowed opposition. Using one phrase for both makes no sense to me. Fundamentally, I'm asking, what does "controlled opposition" mean? Because it's thrown around and I find it confusing and, sometimes, ridiculous.
That's a fair question John, and I couldn't say which of these characters is knowingly performing a role to deceive and which are just allowed to speak and let their ego and desire for followers dictate their missives. The problem with having to different terms is that we are not able to distinguish between which is which, we can only ever use out own discernment. Its a tough one. I actually agree with 90% of what comes from Tate, Brand, Peterson, RFKjr. But whats important is in the 10% they leave out.
A controlled opposition worth its salt would be plausibly camouflaged by precisely sounding appealing to us. This logic by itself is sound on an abstract level, but unfortunately can pave the way for unhinged theories which seem to remain unfalsifiable.
Sure, but sorting through the complexities of many of these events and their theories is often mired in difficulties and ambiguities; so much so, I can't in honesty feel certain about them.
Rob - I found your comment r.e. Google/youtube right on the mark. If the motivation is to keep citizens fighting amongst themselves, you need to ensure a steady supply of actors on both sides.
Although I never paid much attention to Peterson because I have an aversion to messiah figures, I don't suspect him of being "controlled opposition" (or whatever the mot du jour is now). I think that he is just a bright guy who was in the right place at the right time, and developed a shtick that has been quite lucrative.
Before I woke up I used to wonder that same about musicians/bands. Spotify enabled me to truely explore a myriad of music, much of which I could see no reason why they were not as successful as say Foo Fighters or Ed Shearan. The last three years made it all so obvious. They are promoted to that level because they are agreeing to play a certain role. They might not even know this until they try do their own thing only to have their position threatened and fame and wealth removed
I think the key to understanding controlled opposition is this: personalities who can be utilized to corral or misguide certain segments of the population are promoted, boosted and 'platformed' (i.e. showcased and given exposure) while the personality itself is just itself--does that make sense? And then, generally, one's psyche gets a boost--and power corrupts. While its certainly not for me, in any sort of public denouement, to say that there might be some instability in JP's psychological makeup--it is still what I think--and when you take that instability and add the power then you get the type of aggrandizement and instability that we see. Maybe it is just simpler to call them a tool.
OK, so why even say it then? Just say the person is wrong, tackle their argument. It's not relevant that they globalists are allowing them. To attack them by calling them "controlled opposition" - while the "the personality itself is just itself" - is not any kind of takedown or criticism, it in fact has nothing to do with them. It's just a way to avoid having to tackle their argument directly.
As I have just mentioned in my reply above John, the issue is that its hard to disagree with what they say, as too often, its more to do with how they say it, or what they don't say.
Ok. So the term "controlled opposition" is not an insult or slight of any kind at, say, JP or Brand, it's agreed that the person is speaking the truth as they see it - but they are misguided in a way that Mr Global thinks is to his advantage, and so JP/Brand given a platform and allowed to spread their message. Is this it?
Well, kind of, yes. We will never ever know for sure the incentives or intentions of the individual. But they are, whether they know it or not, controlled by and performing a role for those they oppose, and by very definition "controlled opposition". I never saw as an insult, its more of an accurate assesment.
Think of it as a two-step. Controlled opposition is a process, also a utilization. There is a co-opting of reality, or perception or a 'narrative' (the advent of this term, used in the media broadly for the last 20 years is in itself deeply troubling when compared to the actual meaning of the term in literary works). Controlled opposition is the process of becoming, in part. As for the illuminati hand signals--think of that as an expression of the paranoia he mentions as a natural state of being awake. I don't think he means to single that out as evidence, but it is part of the soup. Does it matter? Probably not, but maybe...
"I don't think he means to single that out as evidence, but it is part of the soup"
Seems pretty clear to me. To even put the words on paper at all, Delingpole must surely think Peterson is making these signals, part of a soup or not. I don't think so - I think the idea that Peterson is consciously working with the globalists to be ridiculous.
And if Delingpole doesn't think he's making the signals but he thinks that Peterson's normal hand gestures can legitimately be interpreted as illuminati ones because he is, in fact, a globalist - then Delingpole is just, as they say, making shit up. Either way, I think the claim is ridiculous.
"trying to speak the truth" Seems obvious to me, too.
"Why can’t I give him the benefit of the doubt until more evidence emerges? Shouldn’t we just accept that not everyone on ‘our side’ is going to be right about everything? Shouldn’t we allow him a bit of leeway given all the health problems he’s been having?" (Delingpole)
Therein is a crucial part of Mr. D's analysis of JP. Indeed - on all three points.
And I would add more:
~ JP, like the rest of us, is a work in progress.
~ He has lived in that heady, intellectual, ivory-tower stratosphere for a long time, and of course it is still hanging off him.
~ He has had fame thrust upon him and has become the Canadian intellectual standard bearer. It cannot be easy suddenly finding oneself in the spotlight, despite affirmation and a happy portfolio manager. His quiet, introspective professorial life blew up on him over pronouns.
~ He is in that deep search for God, hoping I am guessing to come to Him through the intellectual process. But this is the God who said, "Come to me as little children." This is the God who is real and available to peasant and king, learned and unlearned, simple or complex. Of course it has to be this way if He is God of all. To be considered is that JP's public intellectual search for God, with a potential huge influence on many, has certainly attracted the attention of Old Grimey who would seek to bedevil the man, lest he turn many heads to God.
I, like many, love listening to his exchange with others. It forces us to think more deeply, and mull over ideas. He, for the most part, is a good interviewer, but there is a soupcon of narcissism in that he does speak over his guests. Yes, he has much to say and needed wisdom to impart, but, then again, the guests often have equally much to share. I would expect some guests are intimidated - and that is not a good thing in an interview. Recently I admired Dr. James Lindsay who at times refused to be talked over. JP needs to learn to listen more to his invited guests.
Mr. Delingpole also included another thought: "And anyway, isn’t the main weakness of our side that we’re endlessly purity-spiralling and witch-hunting and writing allies off as ‘controlled opposition’ when what we really should be aiming for is strength through unity?"
We who have been thrown together in the last three years are a wild and beautiful country garden that some politicos would call the basket of deplorable members of the fringe minority with unacceptable views. IMHO, I believe we need to rigorously cut each some serious slack. Otherwise we might find ourselves playing into Old Grimey hands.
Sorry, but I can’t get past the mean-spiritedness of Delingpole’s intro. “Annoying, wheedling voice.” How gratuitous. Peterson’s not perfect, but I doubt Delingpole is either. Peterson is very precise in his diction, and not everyone can follow his train of thought. Maybe they feel stupid because of this and they’re angry for feeling stupid, and lash out at him for this? Not many in academia have the courage to stand up against its insidious woke movement. At the very least, Peterson gets credit for this.
You have a point. I think one of the funniest things JP ever did was when he did a video admitting he realized his critics who said he sounded like Kermit the Frog were right. It was hilarious. I like his voice just fine. And I have no idea what people are talking about when they say RFK Jr.'s voice is an impediment. To each his own.
I truthfully missed this. I did not realize he said this. I only registered that he said he got it under duress because he wanted to travel and he resented it but he did it.
When I saw video of it, my stomach sank. It felt very much like a betrayal. I tried to get past it -" well so many got caught in that spell-net, it doesn't negate all the good he's done." And of course it doesn't. Still. Buckling yourself is one thing, telling others to give in, is another.
My son still talks up the importance of JP's 12 Lessons. That's all really good.
In a way it does, one thing that he felt compelled to do it (whatever his reasons, though obviously he wouldn't suffer much if he didn't, like many others) but to get on his high horse and command the others, that was something else.
His international comeback tour included many (if not most) venues forcing audiences to be vaxxed. He made lots of $$$ out of that, and it helped reboot his career. Shame on him and shame on anyone else who can't see that. There, I invoked a Petersonian-Mosaic Judgement (sans a flutter of spindly, bony fingers in mid-air before my expensive 3-piece suit).
Ok fair enough. I was able to side step vaccine belief because I knew Harris Coulter, and I consulted Peter Duesberg while pregnant (1994.) I was in a sense very privileged. It was due to my line of work. And my husband at the time was ok with it. And we got a religious exception, valid for in New York City public schools (!!) But are we saying all people who believed in and issued vaccines to their children are irredeemable? I don't know about the word "hero." It's so loaded. Without RFK Jr. on the landscape, I shudder to think. I see him as a blessing this country has long deserved and long been denied. Then again, I get depleted and depressed trying to answer unanswerable questions, like whether somebody is a hero.
Perhaps by hero I mean someone to look up to and follow and give energy away to in terms of one's own discernment and power. The time for heroes in that sense is over. Completely over.
We do need to assume that anyone on the cabal's media is doing something the cabal accepts as useful in some way. Even RFK Jr. Without fair elections, his running without being upfront that the election -- barring some divine intervention -- will again be rigged and your donations will eventually go to the mafia strikes me as fraud. People should have informed consent over that. If he's not telling the whole truth -- because he wants to survive on cabal media -- it's a disservice to us all. We've had enough of this half-truths game imo.
As for those who issued jabs for their kids ... that's the most difficult of all for me to forgive. I can get to acceptance on a good day. Anyone I meet in that situation I pass them all the detox info I know of.
Thank you, Celia, for teaching us to discern the difference between trusting the authority of the person as opposed to trusting the authority of the evidence. This has been hugely important to me. That clarification helped me to see how deeply the propaganda problem is entrenched. By listening to what others believe, we can sort out what is backed by nothing more than opinions and what can be backed up with evidence.
Somehow, we expect our trusted people to be infallible and to trust that, particularly public figures, be honest at all times. Sometimes people, knowingly or unknowingly, make mistakes, and it may well sometimes be due to their belief in authority figures rather than actual evidence. I really appreciate that you are bold and honest enough to change your mind based upon new information. It really helps others to see that when we realize that we don’t always have all of the information and that maybe our beliefs are challenged, it’s to our and others’ benefit to stand corrected, so to speak. It’s okay to change our mind.
We do not need to toss out everything good about what someone does because we find they made a error. We can accept that they added value AND need more information to evaluate a specific topic.
I found this and it reminds me of Celia’s willingness to be humble:
"There's no need to be perfect to inspire others. Let people get inspired by how you deal with your imperfections." ― Ziad K. Abdelnour
I think it’s good to not get stuck in a particular mindset, and it’s important to not bend and sway to every new opinion until we consider new patterns and evidence. Only we can change our own minds.
And lest it sound like I am giving a free pass to public or private figures for declaring something right when we know that the evidence proves otherwise, no. It’s that claims need to be backed by actual evidence, otherwise it’s just windy drivel. It’s up to us to discern.
The difference is that RFK Jr. is promoting himself as above the lies of the System; whereas those hundreds of millions are just ordinary folks trying to get through the day and having learned to trust the Mainstream. Any influential individual on our side who claims to be against the System who supported the Covid Narrative (and/or who still support it sideways, like believing there was a "Covid virus" that actually killed people in numbers worthy of panicking the world (let alone at all) needs to do a 10-hour Zoom conference -- ALL 10 hours being them DOING SOME SPLAININ' LUCY., under the polite but assertive interrogation of a panel of those who never have to do that splainin' -- because they already figured out what it takes these bozos years to figure out.
And we're all adults and need no heroes to make our own decisions. I agree with your earlier comment. I also caught that part from Delingpole's article/opinion. I would love if any of these critics have the time, courage and access to J. Peterson and ask him point blank about all these? And saying this not as to prove any one right or wrong but to honestly know what will be his answer to all this? It would be so beneficial, I think.
Privileged Members of the Alt Community On High (that excludes us Ordinary Peasants other than as passive spectators) rarely if ever ask critical questions of each other. That by itself renders them suspect.
If I may, the thing is that you didn't need to know much about this vaxx and most people didn't. But you had to look around and see what was happening, mostly the contradictions in messaging, censorship and global coordination of the message. In the meantime allowing hundreds of people through the southern border and such. I wonder if there were there fans of his that took the vaxx just to see him talking and if they're ok.
I always thought that Jordan Peterson, like most Jungians, is an intellectual lightweight (“tell me your fear and I’ll tell you what happened to you” — this is deep insight?) with slippery morals, both of which are characteristic of Jung himself, the man and the work.
Ask a Jungian, for instance, what the relation between “individuation” and the “collective unconscious” is — the answer will tell you there is no coherence in this jargon-riddled school.
As for ethics: What did you do in the war, Carl? The Swiss citizen edited a psychiatry journal directly controlled by top-ranking Nazis.
It’s a mystery to me what value anyone finds in Jung’s serial truisms (see his self-serving introduction to “Man and his Symbols,” for instance). Equally baffling is why no one — including JP -- ever questions his contribution to the Reich.
Mr Shohl: Eh, at this point, if you're following Ms Farber, you should know that both aids and covid were nothing more than lies. You might want to ask yourself if what you 'know' about the 'Reich' is also lies, and if the lies were peddled by the exact same people.
I was never able to see what others saw in him. He comes across as a self righteous prideful ass to me, no matter what comes out of his mouth. Wrong energy is a red flag to me.
Yes the benzo period, so well timed with the begining of absolute tyranny was just too coincidental. If not, then that makes JP the most credulous fool in history to trust a prescription like that. Either way, trust has long since left the building.
His wife was diagnosed with a cancer with the prognosis most likely being terminal. His doctor put him on benzos to cope with the anxiety around her diagnosis. I came across him in a Templeton Foundation lecture supplemental to a cognitive science of religion MOOC. I have read Maps of Meaning. I thought from the very beginning that he was just plain wrong about many things, and that even his interdisciplinary thinking wasn't thorough even, especially in psychology, but that he was genuinely intellectually and emotionally honest. I always thought he might be too influenced by fossil fuel interests, but I also think he could go into a room of vax damaged kids and have something deeply meaningful to give them. Not clean your room, but a deep recognition of who they are and what they are experiencing. We forget these days that peoples' flaws may have a profound relationship to the good they can do in the world. I'm suspicious of ARC, but not because he isn't genuine in his commitments. He's a complete nasty vitriolic snark on twitter, but the platform does that to the brain, I'm convinced, and I kind of like that he has that side to him. He's unique and eccentric and deeply empathic and, as I said, just wrong about stuff to my mind, and who knows who is around him who is trying to influence him in some geopolitical sense, or misguide him, but I trust that he stands in and speaks from his deepest truth. It is a terrifying cognitive zeitgeist, I think, that we can't recognize people as complex, sometimes wrong, sometimes fucked up, sometimes right, sometimes brilliant. It is a paranoid, left hemisphere driven, puritan and purifying miasma that envelops all of us all the time.
While Jim Caviezel praised Peterson for his questions during a recent interview on the Sound of Freedom movie which also included Tim Ballard, I found myself looking askance at Dr. Peterson a few times and wondering whose side he was on.
Horsea: he always struck me as the King of the Midwits. He rose to prominence by refusing to kowtow to the pronoun brigade. Hey! I'm on his side on that one... but you hardly need to be a U of T professor to figure out that chicks are chicks, and dudes are dudes.
Wonderful post, and you have thought through and beautifully laid out what my mind has struggled with in relation to JP, but didn't consciously understand. Thank you.
Honestly, I don’t see why you went here. I generally like JP but his highbrow academic language and sanctimonious style are off putting. Who cares. I liked where you started…let’s stick to debating peoples’s ideas and not the people themselves. We are all guilty of thinking we know the mind and intentions of other people at some point and now, unfortunately, so are you.
There’s a pile of people whom I admire and who have disappointed the hell out of me- Noam Chomsky and Joanie Mitchell come popping into my mind. They are just people. I don’t expect them to be perfect. I’m not a child and I don’t have hero worship. I e grown up to see that mom and dad and all my “heroes” are fallible and that’s ok. I can deal with it without needing to jump on and off any bandwagons.
Let’s all have some compassion for our humanness and have debates and disagreements without needing to “erase” someone ok?
I get what you mean, but Chomsky and Peterson are particularly egregious. Both blather on at length about the dangers of totalitarianism -- from the precipices of MIT and Harvard/Toronto, no less -- and then completely fall for one of the most transparent totalitarian actions in history!!!
"The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were."
JOHN F. KENNEDY
( I would prefer that you introduce us to new writers but let us make up our own mind about the content )
It is synchronistic that you just posted this as as around 2 hours ago I shared your article from yesterday in JD's Telegram group and told him he should get you on his podcast! I would love it for you 2 to have a chat. I also listened to the rest of the podcast with your friend Nick Bryant and the 2 comedians earlier and thought it was great. Nick is a very brave man
"I don’t like dots, as journalism, as story telling."
The problem is, with complex issues such as the prospect of an internationally coordinated conspiracy from the top down, there are aspects where we only have dots and/or red flags. This creates a dilemma where one follows reason with an open mind or one shuts down and rejects axiomatically the possibility of conspiracy. This then creates the unfortunately unavoidable situation of grifters and kooks mingling among us more reasonable people in a marketplace of ideas where there is no ultimate authority and pretty much anything goes. One doesn't have to become an acolyte of Amazing Polly to appreciate the red flags she has pointed out which at the very least should give us pause. Her presentation on Jordan Peterson was rich in details of varying quality, and some of the parenthetical threads she uncovered startle -- as with the Elitist world in which Candace Owens must swim, given who her husband is -- a world Candace seems, by disingenuous rhetoric, to distance herself from. More broadly, Amazing Polly's overarching point is that Jordan has been swimming with globalist Elitists but pretending that he (and they) are not globalist Elitists. The additional fact that Jordan has not done any splainin' about this should add to our disquiet about his intentions.
Overall, in this Alt-World of Alt-Pundits and Alt-Elitists, there seems to be no mechanism or culture of internal self-criticism and quality control, whereby we Ordinary Peasants -- who surely outnumber them by a million to one but have virtually zero cultural power other than posting little comments in nooks & crannies of the virtual sphere (like mine here that will garner 3.5 readers at best) -- can better estimate their worth for us and for the world we care about.
It doesn't help that the up-and-coming Alt-Pundits climbing the ladder of fame in the game (e.g., the Triggernometry guys [Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster]; or Benjamin Boyce; or Jenny Holland; or Amazing Polly; and a couple thousand others it seems, some higher than others [e.g., James Lindsay]) seem to succumb to a subcultural habit of preaching to the choir and high-fiving each other and never seriously critiquing internally in the interest of quality control. So it's refreshing for Celia Farber to call attention to this problem at all.
I love your honesty and humility, Celia. Your willingness to reconsider preconceptions in light of new evidence keeps you from stagnating and falling into the traps that frequently ensnare the close-minded.
I don’t like to speculate about whether someone is controlled opposition without evidence (which can rarely be found), and I generally follow Aisling O’Loughlin’s strategy (without knowing it existed until reading this article).
I don’t think Jordan Peterson is intentionally controlled, but he is serving that purpose nevertheless. I think he is emotionally and psychologically fragile, and his judgment has been impaired accordingly.
I lost respect for him when he failed to see the glaring totalitarianism he had been warning about for years—despite having recommended a litany of books that should have equipped anyone paying attention to recognize the signs.
I give him credit for acknowledging he was wrong about COVID and eventually recognizing the signs of tyranny (https://mathewaldred.substack.com/p/jordan-peterson-we-abdicated-responsibility), but he still is a mainstream straddler (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-a-mainstream-straddler) with bad takes on topics like protecting people’s right to privacy (https://joshketry.substack.com/p/elon-and-dr-jordan-peterson-spar).
Still, I have him to thank for nudging me to prioritize the reading of books I consider part of my essential reading list now, from Christopher Browning’s “Ordinary Men” to Orwell’s “Road to Wigan Pier” to Solzhenitsyn’s “Gulag Archipelago.” And for that, I remain grateful.
I concur Margaret Anna!
He needs to publicly repent and apologize for gaining crucial fame and wealth on his "comeback tour" by using venues that forced his audiences to get vaxxed, Until he does, I invoke the self-righteous moral Judgement he's always invoking to condemn others by.
VERY valid point.
I, too, lost respect for him when - after years of hearing him dismantle totalitarianism and giving evidence of it's destructive end - he fell like a rock into the vaccine stream.
I control the volume, though, and when he is talking about something I am interested in I can turn it up, if he is whimpering and tearing up about something pathetic I turn him down or off, I mean, "benzos"? Seriously? What kind of a shitty psychiatrist do you need to be to think that is a remedy for anything. We have a great deal of control in what we allow into our heads.
Lots of good people fell into the vaccine stream. It doesn't make them "controlled opposition" it makes them trusting of a system that they'd been programmed from infancy to have implicit trust in.
Yes, people did allow their life-long trust to lead them into the stream. Shame on those who took advantage of that trust. But, JP, spent a lot of time and airspace pointing out the dangers of totalitarianism BEFORE we became glued to the ground by it. He, JP, should have know better. The signs were clear for anyone who had spent even a small amount of time delving into the Socialist methodology as he claims to have. Trust is a very precious thing, though, and I hope we all learned our lesson about being prodigious with it. As for "controlled opposition", while I get what it means, I am utterly ignorant of who is or isn't. Haven't a clue...
I agree Amy. SO TIRED of making excused for multi-millionaire intellectuals, famosos, influencers, various wizards, paid to KNOW something…but somehow did not understand. Covid. I'm very intolerant as well. They should have known. Peter Duesberg had been in the culture by them for 33 years!
Yep. Until I see him publicly weeping in agony like Jimmy Swaggart over his slavish support of the vaccine (and benefiting by it when he did his comeback tour in venues that forced audiences to be injected), I will not take him seriously.
Valid point ET but surely this hasn't been the case in JPs instance. He'd been fully aware and sounding warnings about the "traps of totalitarianism".He's not the average Joe. And, about the Vax, one would think that, given his experience with "benzos" he would be more aware of medical solutions.
I wasnt aware of all this. I will re look at everything I believe and read your links. TIA>
I'm genuinely bemused, as I often am, by these claims of "controlled opposition", it has become the "safe and effective" of the freedom movement.
Delingpole thinks that JP is actually intentionally shilling for the globalists? If you tell me he's wrong, he's lost it, he's misguided, he's accidentally putting the young men into a pen and he is allowed (and maybe given help) to flourish because the globalists like this mistake he's making and so on, I get can on board with this. I've stopped listening to him myself long ago.
But rather like Brand, he is a man obviously trying to speak the truth and not someone who will read from a script to please the globalists. This seems obvious to me. So, genuine question - which is it? Is it that he is fed his lines and talking points by the globalists, or do they allow him to keep in the limelight because his attempts at speaking his truth are actually helping them fracture the Right?
And if it's the first, can someone give a concrete example of him speaking lines he doesn't believe and was fed by someone else?
I need to add: I don't necessarily think that. I just feel it's all gotten too bloated and weird.
I think there’s a fair bit of ego wrapped up in the expensive suits.
His comment about getting the damn vaxx did it for me. Don’t care how many disclaimers you add, you’re just as bad as the authoritarians you claim to be against. BTW Glad the carnivore is working for you. You may find at some point when you feel much better that introducing low lectin, low oxylate carbs may work. Hope you find a good functional medicine doc! Love your writing!
I love Jordan's podcast sets with the stacks of firewood behind him in the den of his multi-million-dollar Canadian home.
Yeah, like "get the damn vaxx", there's world to be saved, engagements and travelling lol, then getting upset with the con. Not exactly would've become homeless and for someone of his intellectual stature he showed utter lack of discern/thinking clearly process. And when you have a cold/sober look and analize the rest...I used to be a huge fan but he lost me for good.
Some Blasts from the past...
Walter Cronkite, " The most trusted man in America". And also the Voice of the Owl at Bohemian Grove.
Rush Limbaugh, Hater of Druggies, major league Pharma Opiate Junkie.
Larry King, veteran child sex trafficker.
Never be lulled into ignoring your inner voice.
Larry King the sex trafficker was not the same as the talk show host.
Pop hero worship is simply unhealthy.
It is weird enough when 13 year old girls do it.
In adults, it is reprehensible.
Indeed.
Hey John, these concepts of controlled opposition and limited hangout are actually quite complex to get your head around. It took me years to truely understand them. Once you understand the depth of the concept it becomes obvious that, whether they know it or not, Brand, Peterson, Tate, Rogan et al are all controlled opposition. They are hearders. How easy would it be for Google and YouTube to dissappear these guys in to obscurity if they really wanted to. The fact that they don't and they haven't should tell you all you need to know.
"whether they know it or not, Brand, Peterson, Tate, Rogan et al are all controlled opposition"
It makes no sense to me to not make that distinction. That is exactly what I'm asking and what I explicitly asked, does he "know it or not"? Because we need two terms. One is like a double agent, and one is allowed opposition. Using one phrase for both makes no sense to me. Fundamentally, I'm asking, what does "controlled opposition" mean? Because it's thrown around and I find it confusing and, sometimes, ridiculous.
That's a fair question John, and I couldn't say which of these characters is knowingly performing a role to deceive and which are just allowed to speak and let their ego and desire for followers dictate their missives. The problem with having to different terms is that we are not able to distinguish between which is which, we can only ever use out own discernment. Its a tough one. I actually agree with 90% of what comes from Tate, Brand, Peterson, RFKjr. But whats important is in the 10% they leave out.
A controlled opposition worth its salt would be plausibly camouflaged by precisely sounding appealing to us. This logic by itself is sound on an abstract level, but unfortunately can pave the way for unhinged theories which seem to remain unfalsifiable.
I wouldn't say that any theory is unhinged if there is enough evidence for it be considered a theory.
Sure, but sorting through the complexities of many of these events and their theories is often mired in difficulties and ambiguities; so much so, I can't in honesty feel certain about them.
Rob - I found your comment r.e. Google/youtube right on the mark. If the motivation is to keep citizens fighting amongst themselves, you need to ensure a steady supply of actors on both sides.
Although I never paid much attention to Peterson because I have an aversion to messiah figures, I don't suspect him of being "controlled opposition" (or whatever the mot du jour is now). I think that he is just a bright guy who was in the right place at the right time, and developed a shtick that has been quite lucrative.
The meteoric rise to fame & fortune complete with a best selling book is a big tell. This literally can’t happen organically
Before I woke up I used to wonder that same about musicians/bands. Spotify enabled me to truely explore a myriad of music, much of which I could see no reason why they were not as successful as say Foo Fighters or Ed Shearan. The last three years made it all so obvious. They are promoted to that level because they are agreeing to play a certain role. They might not even know this until they try do their own thing only to have their position threatened and fame and wealth removed
Agree with the need to distinguish.
I think the key to understanding controlled opposition is this: personalities who can be utilized to corral or misguide certain segments of the population are promoted, boosted and 'platformed' (i.e. showcased and given exposure) while the personality itself is just itself--does that make sense? And then, generally, one's psyche gets a boost--and power corrupts. While its certainly not for me, in any sort of public denouement, to say that there might be some instability in JP's psychological makeup--it is still what I think--and when you take that instability and add the power then you get the type of aggrandizement and instability that we see. Maybe it is just simpler to call them a tool.
OK, so why even say it then? Just say the person is wrong, tackle their argument. It's not relevant that they globalists are allowing them. To attack them by calling them "controlled opposition" - while the "the personality itself is just itself" - is not any kind of takedown or criticism, it in fact has nothing to do with them. It's just a way to avoid having to tackle their argument directly.
As I have just mentioned in my reply above John, the issue is that its hard to disagree with what they say, as too often, its more to do with how they say it, or what they don't say.
Ok. So the term "controlled opposition" is not an insult or slight of any kind at, say, JP or Brand, it's agreed that the person is speaking the truth as they see it - but they are misguided in a way that Mr Global thinks is to his advantage, and so JP/Brand given a platform and allowed to spread their message. Is this it?
Well, kind of, yes. We will never ever know for sure the incentives or intentions of the individual. But they are, whether they know it or not, controlled by and performing a role for those they oppose, and by very definition "controlled opposition". I never saw as an insult, its more of an accurate assesment.
OK, I agree somewhat. But this is not what Delingpole is saying - he says JP is making "Illuminati hand signals". I think that's ludicrous.
Think of it as a two-step. Controlled opposition is a process, also a utilization. There is a co-opting of reality, or perception or a 'narrative' (the advent of this term, used in the media broadly for the last 20 years is in itself deeply troubling when compared to the actual meaning of the term in literary works). Controlled opposition is the process of becoming, in part. As for the illuminati hand signals--think of that as an expression of the paranoia he mentions as a natural state of being awake. I don't think he means to single that out as evidence, but it is part of the soup. Does it matter? Probably not, but maybe...
"I don't think he means to single that out as evidence, but it is part of the soup"
Seems pretty clear to me. To even put the words on paper at all, Delingpole must surely think Peterson is making these signals, part of a soup or not. I don't think so - I think the idea that Peterson is consciously working with the globalists to be ridiculous.
And if Delingpole doesn't think he's making the signals but he thinks that Peterson's normal hand gestures can legitimately be interpreted as illuminati ones because he is, in fact, a globalist - then Delingpole is just, as they say, making shit up. Either way, I think the claim is ridiculous.
yep, tool just about sums it up.
"trying to speak the truth" Seems obvious to me, too.
"Why can’t I give him the benefit of the doubt until more evidence emerges? Shouldn’t we just accept that not everyone on ‘our side’ is going to be right about everything? Shouldn’t we allow him a bit of leeway given all the health problems he’s been having?" (Delingpole)
Therein is a crucial part of Mr. D's analysis of JP. Indeed - on all three points.
And I would add more:
~ JP, like the rest of us, is a work in progress.
~ He has lived in that heady, intellectual, ivory-tower stratosphere for a long time, and of course it is still hanging off him.
~ He has had fame thrust upon him and has become the Canadian intellectual standard bearer. It cannot be easy suddenly finding oneself in the spotlight, despite affirmation and a happy portfolio manager. His quiet, introspective professorial life blew up on him over pronouns.
~ He is in that deep search for God, hoping I am guessing to come to Him through the intellectual process. But this is the God who said, "Come to me as little children." This is the God who is real and available to peasant and king, learned and unlearned, simple or complex. Of course it has to be this way if He is God of all. To be considered is that JP's public intellectual search for God, with a potential huge influence on many, has certainly attracted the attention of Old Grimey who would seek to bedevil the man, lest he turn many heads to God.
I, like many, love listening to his exchange with others. It forces us to think more deeply, and mull over ideas. He, for the most part, is a good interviewer, but there is a soupcon of narcissism in that he does speak over his guests. Yes, he has much to say and needed wisdom to impart, but, then again, the guests often have equally much to share. I would expect some guests are intimidated - and that is not a good thing in an interview. Recently I admired Dr. James Lindsay who at times refused to be talked over. JP needs to learn to listen more to his invited guests.
Mr. Delingpole also included another thought: "And anyway, isn’t the main weakness of our side that we’re endlessly purity-spiralling and witch-hunting and writing allies off as ‘controlled opposition’ when what we really should be aiming for is strength through unity?"
We who have been thrown together in the last three years are a wild and beautiful country garden that some politicos would call the basket of deplorable members of the fringe minority with unacceptable views. IMHO, I believe we need to rigorously cut each some serious slack. Otherwise we might find ourselves playing into Old Grimey hands.
Surprised this was overlooked by Celia.
Just reread it and know it rational, esp the last paragraph.
He is a freaking shrink;it doesn't get more Deep State than that.
A thorn in the side of civilized discourse.
Yes. Have been a JP skeptic for a long time, but that does not mean I don't think he is useful in making people start to question things. Like Trump
Sorry, but I can’t get past the mean-spiritedness of Delingpole’s intro. “Annoying, wheedling voice.” How gratuitous. Peterson’s not perfect, but I doubt Delingpole is either. Peterson is very precise in his diction, and not everyone can follow his train of thought. Maybe they feel stupid because of this and they’re angry for feeling stupid, and lash out at him for this? Not many in academia have the courage to stand up against its insidious woke movement. At the very least, Peterson gets credit for this.
You have a point. I think one of the funniest things JP ever did was when he did a video admitting he realized his critics who said he sounded like Kermit the Frog were right. It was hilarious. I like his voice just fine. And I have no idea what people are talking about when they say RFK Jr.'s voice is an impediment. To each his own.
Interesting. Because you can get past the far more mean-spirited and consequential "Get the damn Jab" JP uttered, no scolded to his listeners...
I truthfully missed this. I did not realize he said this. I only registered that he said he got it under duress because he wanted to travel and he resented it but he did it.
When I saw video of it, my stomach sank. It felt very much like a betrayal. I tried to get past it -" well so many got caught in that spell-net, it doesn't negate all the good he's done." And of course it doesn't. Still. Buckling yourself is one thing, telling others to give in, is another.
My son still talks up the importance of JP's 12 Lessons. That's all really good.
But hero, no.
Right. Exactly.
That fact alone destroys his credibility as a principled man.
In a way it does, one thing that he felt compelled to do it (whatever his reasons, though obviously he wouldn't suffer much if he didn't, like many others) but to get on his high horse and command the others, that was something else.
Yep.
12 Rules for Life -
Rule 13
Don't submit to coercion for any reason.
Rule 14
Don't bully other people because of your own cowardice.
👍 Good one Mark! Gifted the book few yrs back, but it's sounds right.
zero excuse for that, let's be honest. If he couldn't seen it, he's to be written off as any hero.
His international comeback tour included many (if not most) venues forcing audiences to be vaxxed. He made lots of $$$ out of that, and it helped reboot his career. Shame on him and shame on anyone else who can't see that. There, I invoked a Petersonian-Mosaic Judgement (sans a flutter of spindly, bony fingers in mid-air before my expensive 3-piece suit).
Like I said, he’s not perfect. RFKjr vaccinated his kids.
They're adults, though. Can he be forgiven for not knowing, then? Like so many hundreds of millions?
nope. not accepting him as hero either.
Ok fair enough. I was able to side step vaccine belief because I knew Harris Coulter, and I consulted Peter Duesberg while pregnant (1994.) I was in a sense very privileged. It was due to my line of work. And my husband at the time was ok with it. And we got a religious exception, valid for in New York City public schools (!!) But are we saying all people who believed in and issued vaccines to their children are irredeemable? I don't know about the word "hero." It's so loaded. Without RFK Jr. on the landscape, I shudder to think. I see him as a blessing this country has long deserved and long been denied. Then again, I get depleted and depressed trying to answer unanswerable questions, like whether somebody is a hero.
Perhaps by hero I mean someone to look up to and follow and give energy away to in terms of one's own discernment and power. The time for heroes in that sense is over. Completely over.
We do need to assume that anyone on the cabal's media is doing something the cabal accepts as useful in some way. Even RFK Jr. Without fair elections, his running without being upfront that the election -- barring some divine intervention -- will again be rigged and your donations will eventually go to the mafia strikes me as fraud. People should have informed consent over that. If he's not telling the whole truth -- because he wants to survive on cabal media -- it's a disservice to us all. We've had enough of this half-truths game imo.
As for those who issued jabs for their kids ... that's the most difficult of all for me to forgive. I can get to acceptance on a good day. Anyone I meet in that situation I pass them all the detox info I know of.
Thank you, Celia, for teaching us to discern the difference between trusting the authority of the person as opposed to trusting the authority of the evidence. This has been hugely important to me. That clarification helped me to see how deeply the propaganda problem is entrenched. By listening to what others believe, we can sort out what is backed by nothing more than opinions and what can be backed up with evidence.
Somehow, we expect our trusted people to be infallible and to trust that, particularly public figures, be honest at all times. Sometimes people, knowingly or unknowingly, make mistakes, and it may well sometimes be due to their belief in authority figures rather than actual evidence. I really appreciate that you are bold and honest enough to change your mind based upon new information. It really helps others to see that when we realize that we don’t always have all of the information and that maybe our beliefs are challenged, it’s to our and others’ benefit to stand corrected, so to speak. It’s okay to change our mind.
We do not need to toss out everything good about what someone does because we find they made a error. We can accept that they added value AND need more information to evaluate a specific topic.
I found this and it reminds me of Celia’s willingness to be humble:
"There's no need to be perfect to inspire others. Let people get inspired by how you deal with your imperfections." ― Ziad K. Abdelnour
I think it’s good to not get stuck in a particular mindset, and it’s important to not bend and sway to every new opinion until we consider new patterns and evidence. Only we can change our own minds.
And lest it sound like I am giving a free pass to public or private figures for declaring something right when we know that the evidence proves otherwise, no. It’s that claims need to be backed by actual evidence, otherwise it’s just windy drivel. It’s up to us to discern.
The difference is that RFK Jr. is promoting himself as above the lies of the System; whereas those hundreds of millions are just ordinary folks trying to get through the day and having learned to trust the Mainstream. Any influential individual on our side who claims to be against the System who supported the Covid Narrative (and/or who still support it sideways, like believing there was a "Covid virus" that actually killed people in numbers worthy of panicking the world (let alone at all) needs to do a 10-hour Zoom conference -- ALL 10 hours being them DOING SOME SPLAININ' LUCY., under the polite but assertive interrogation of a panel of those who never have to do that splainin' -- because they already figured out what it takes these bozos years to figure out.
Yes--that’s exactly my point. Peterson is incredibly well-read and deeply knowledgeable on many subjects, but obviously not on vaccines.
And we're all adults and need no heroes to make our own decisions. I agree with your earlier comment. I also caught that part from Delingpole's article/opinion. I would love if any of these critics have the time, courage and access to J. Peterson and ask him point blank about all these? And saying this not as to prove any one right or wrong but to honestly know what will be his answer to all this? It would be so beneficial, I think.
Privileged Members of the Alt Community On High (that excludes us Ordinary Peasants other than as passive spectators) rarely if ever ask critical questions of each other. That by itself renders them suspect.
If I may, the thing is that you didn't need to know much about this vaxx and most people didn't. But you had to look around and see what was happening, mostly the contradictions in messaging, censorship and global coordination of the message. In the meantime allowing hundreds of people through the southern border and such. I wonder if there were there fans of his that took the vaxx just to see him talking and if they're ok.
Peterson is also an idiot about Islam. Sorry. I meant a blithering idiot*.
Thanks Celia. I never once listened to the guy. Read the Bible - the word of God; any man-created talk or text is way, way behind the curve. Peace.
check out the JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh for the original word.
Check out the ESV Study Bible. Lots of supplemental material illustrating how the bible is true to the original manuscripts. Peace.
This is the one I use. I had no idea Amazon had it for this price. I paid over $60 for mine:
https://www.amazon.com/ESV-Study-Bible-Bibles-Crossway/dp/1433502410/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=esv+study+bible&sr=8-2
Peace.
I always thought that Jordan Peterson, like most Jungians, is an intellectual lightweight (“tell me your fear and I’ll tell you what happened to you” — this is deep insight?) with slippery morals, both of which are characteristic of Jung himself, the man and the work.
Ask a Jungian, for instance, what the relation between “individuation” and the “collective unconscious” is — the answer will tell you there is no coherence in this jargon-riddled school.
As for ethics: What did you do in the war, Carl? The Swiss citizen edited a psychiatry journal directly controlled by top-ranking Nazis.
It’s a mystery to me what value anyone finds in Jung’s serial truisms (see his self-serving introduction to “Man and his Symbols,” for instance). Equally baffling is why no one — including JP -- ever questions his contribution to the Reich.
Mr Shohl: Eh, at this point, if you're following Ms Farber, you should know that both aids and covid were nothing more than lies. You might want to ask yourself if what you 'know' about the 'Reich' is also lies, and if the lies were peddled by the exact same people.
ShiYen
Yes I do know about all three lies, and I don’t dispute that
(thumbs up emoji!)
I was never able to see what others saw in him. He comes across as a self righteous prideful ass to me, no matter what comes out of his mouth. Wrong energy is a red flag to me.
Yes the benzo period, so well timed with the begining of absolute tyranny was just too coincidental. If not, then that makes JP the most credulous fool in history to trust a prescription like that. Either way, trust has long since left the building.
His wife was diagnosed with a cancer with the prognosis most likely being terminal. His doctor put him on benzos to cope with the anxiety around her diagnosis. I came across him in a Templeton Foundation lecture supplemental to a cognitive science of religion MOOC. I have read Maps of Meaning. I thought from the very beginning that he was just plain wrong about many things, and that even his interdisciplinary thinking wasn't thorough even, especially in psychology, but that he was genuinely intellectually and emotionally honest. I always thought he might be too influenced by fossil fuel interests, but I also think he could go into a room of vax damaged kids and have something deeply meaningful to give them. Not clean your room, but a deep recognition of who they are and what they are experiencing. We forget these days that peoples' flaws may have a profound relationship to the good they can do in the world. I'm suspicious of ARC, but not because he isn't genuine in his commitments. He's a complete nasty vitriolic snark on twitter, but the platform does that to the brain, I'm convinced, and I kind of like that he has that side to him. He's unique and eccentric and deeply empathic and, as I said, just wrong about stuff to my mind, and who knows who is around him who is trying to influence him in some geopolitical sense, or misguide him, but I trust that he stands in and speaks from his deepest truth. It is a terrifying cognitive zeitgeist, I think, that we can't recognize people as complex, sometimes wrong, sometimes fucked up, sometimes right, sometimes brilliant. It is a paranoid, left hemisphere driven, puritan and purifying miasma that envelops all of us all the time.
While Jim Caviezel praised Peterson for his questions during a recent interview on the Sound of Freedom movie which also included Tim Ballard, I found myself looking askance at Dr. Peterson a few times and wondering whose side he was on.
Yeah that whole interview was weird.
Horsea: he always struck me as the King of the Midwits. He rose to prominence by refusing to kowtow to the pronoun brigade. Hey! I'm on his side on that one... but you hardly need to be a U of T professor to figure out that chicks are chicks, and dudes are dudes.
ShiYen
Wonderful post, and you have thought through and beautifully laid out what my mind has struggled with in relation to JP, but didn't consciously understand. Thank you.
when the ears hear someone/something that seems revelatory the technology of the gut is key for effecting discernment...
(edit: and that's part of the reason for the assault on the microbiome ;)
Honestly, I don’t see why you went here. I generally like JP but his highbrow academic language and sanctimonious style are off putting. Who cares. I liked where you started…let’s stick to debating peoples’s ideas and not the people themselves. We are all guilty of thinking we know the mind and intentions of other people at some point and now, unfortunately, so are you.
There’s a pile of people whom I admire and who have disappointed the hell out of me- Noam Chomsky and Joanie Mitchell come popping into my mind. They are just people. I don’t expect them to be perfect. I’m not a child and I don’t have hero worship. I e grown up to see that mom and dad and all my “heroes” are fallible and that’s ok. I can deal with it without needing to jump on and off any bandwagons.
Let’s all have some compassion for our humanness and have debates and disagreements without needing to “erase” someone ok?
That’s just my opinion for what it’s worth.
Amen to this.
None of us are all knowing. None of us are Saints.
If you find what Peterson says useful, then jolly good. If not, ignore and move on.
I get what you mean, but Chomsky and Peterson are particularly egregious. Both blather on at length about the dangers of totalitarianism -- from the precipices of MIT and Harvard/Toronto, no less -- and then completely fall for one of the most transparent totalitarian actions in history!!!
"The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were."
JOHN F. KENNEDY
( I would prefer that you introduce us to new writers but let us make up our own mind about the content )
Well, I do that too. But this time I wanted to put my final JP statement into the mix, because otherwise I won't get it done.
It is synchronistic that you just posted this as as around 2 hours ago I shared your article from yesterday in JD's Telegram group and told him he should get you on his podcast! I would love it for you 2 to have a chat. I also listened to the rest of the podcast with your friend Nick Bryant and the 2 comedians earlier and thought it was great. Nick is a very brave man
I have listened to him a few times and I will listen to him again.
"I don’t like dots, as journalism, as story telling."
The problem is, with complex issues such as the prospect of an internationally coordinated conspiracy from the top down, there are aspects where we only have dots and/or red flags. This creates a dilemma where one follows reason with an open mind or one shuts down and rejects axiomatically the possibility of conspiracy. This then creates the unfortunately unavoidable situation of grifters and kooks mingling among us more reasonable people in a marketplace of ideas where there is no ultimate authority and pretty much anything goes. One doesn't have to become an acolyte of Amazing Polly to appreciate the red flags she has pointed out which at the very least should give us pause. Her presentation on Jordan Peterson was rich in details of varying quality, and some of the parenthetical threads she uncovered startle -- as with the Elitist world in which Candace Owens must swim, given who her husband is -- a world Candace seems, by disingenuous rhetoric, to distance herself from. More broadly, Amazing Polly's overarching point is that Jordan has been swimming with globalist Elitists but pretending that he (and they) are not globalist Elitists. The additional fact that Jordan has not done any splainin' about this should add to our disquiet about his intentions.
Overall, in this Alt-World of Alt-Pundits and Alt-Elitists, there seems to be no mechanism or culture of internal self-criticism and quality control, whereby we Ordinary Peasants -- who surely outnumber them by a million to one but have virtually zero cultural power other than posting little comments in nooks & crannies of the virtual sphere (like mine here that will garner 3.5 readers at best) -- can better estimate their worth for us and for the world we care about.
It doesn't help that the up-and-coming Alt-Pundits climbing the ladder of fame in the game (e.g., the Triggernometry guys [Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster]; or Benjamin Boyce; or Jenny Holland; or Amazing Polly; and a couple thousand others it seems, some higher than others [e.g., James Lindsay]) seem to succumb to a subcultural habit of preaching to the choir and high-fiving each other and never seriously critiquing internally in the interest of quality control. So it's refreshing for Celia Farber to call attention to this problem at all.