Saturday, 23 June 2018


"Can't a man die in peace without some high almighty deciding it's not his time?"

No - You Get to Live.

So I thought I would start the lecture tonight by reading a little bit of it. It’s from a chapter on the issue of sacrifice as such. 

This is Abraham and Isaac. 

This is a very strange, little Old Testament story. 

This is one of the stories that’s contained in the Old Testament that makes modern people think that maybe we should just not have that much to do with the Old Testament, per say, at all, especially with regards—and maybe we shouldn’t have anything to do with the God of the Old Testament, either. 

I mean, as far as Abraham is concerned, God tells him to sacrifice his own son. 

Now it turns out that God was just kidding, so to speak. 

I’m obviously being flippant, but it does raise the question, what do you make of the divine being who would require such a thing? 

Or, conversely, what do you make of Abraham, who would have such delusions? 

Either way, it’s a little hard on the modern believability, and on the moral integrity of the Old Testament. 

These are very, very strange stories, and they are not what they seem to be—or they are, and they’re more.

"When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. 
And Cain said unto the Lord, '
My punishment is greater than I can bear."

One of the things that’s interesting about this is—
I think the punishment that God lays on Cain…

It’s like the inevitable consequences of Cain’s action. 

It’s like, well, he killed his brother. 

There’s no going back from that. 

Good luck forgiving yourself for that, 
especially if he was your ideal. 

Because you haven’t just Killed Your Brother

and, of course, tortured your parents and the rest of your family

You’ve Deprived the Community of Someone Who’s Upstanding
You Did it for The Worst Possible Motivations. 

There’s no up from there. 
That’s as close to Hell as you can manage on Earth, I would say.

"And Cain said unto the Lord, my punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid…”

That, too. 
There’s also no turning back to God, let’s say, after an error like that. 

You’ve done everything you possibly could to spite God
—assuming he exists—
and the probability that you’re going to be able to mend that relationship in your now-broken state, when you couldn’t mend it to begin with, before you did something so terrible, starts to move towards zero.

"And it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him."

That’s an interesting thing. 
I wondered about that for a long time. 

You might think, 
'Why would God take Cain under his wing, so to speak, given what’s already happened?' 

I think it has something to do with the emergence of the idea that it was necessary to prevent tit-for-tat revenge slayings. 
It’s something like that. 

There’s hints of that later in the text. 
It’s like, well, I killed your brother, and then you killed two of my brothers, and then I kill your whole family, and then you kill my whole town, and then I kill your whole country, 

And then we blow up The World. 

That’s probably not a very intelligent solution to the initial problem, even though the initial problem, which might be a murder, is not an easy thing to solve. 

But I think it’s something like that.

That’s William Blake. 

Adam and Eve have discovered their Dead Son. 

Cain has become cognizant, I would say, of 
What He Did 
and of 
What He Is. 

It’s another entrance into a form of self-consciousness. 

The Self-Consciousness that Adam and Eve developed was painful enough. 

They become aware of their own Vulnerability, Nakedness, and, perhaps, even their Capacity for Evil. 

But Cain becomes aware of his 
Voluntary engagement with Evil Itself
and sees that as a crucial, human capability.

That’s something modern people…
It’s no wonder we don’t take it seriously.

Among intellectual circles, for decades, the Idea of Evil has been…

It’s like, what are you? 
Medieval, or something? 

The whole Idea of Evil is a non-starter as an intellectual starting place, and as a topic. 

That’s something that I’ve just been unable to understand. 

I cannot understand how you could possibly have more than a cursory knowledge of the history of the 20th century—much less a deep knowledge of the history of the 20th century—and walk away with any other conclusion than, 

"Well, Good might not exist, but Evil…"

The evidence for that is so overwhelming that only Willful Blindness could possibly explain denying its existence.

That was actually a useful discovery for me. 

I also concluded that, if it was True that Evil existed, then it was True, by inference, that its opposite existed. 

The Opposite of Evil. 

Let’s say the Evil of The Concentrate Camp. 

We could get more specific about it. 

There’s this one thing that used to happen in Auschwitz, where they would take people off the incoming trains—those who lived, and that weren’t stacked around the outside of the train cars and frozen to death  because it was too cold. 
Those who only had to be stuck in the middle, so it was warm enough. 
Maybe the old people died because they suffocated, but at least some of them were alive when they arrived at Auschwitz. 

They took those poor people out, and one of the tricks that the guards used to play on them was to have the newly arrived prisoners hoist like hundred pound sacks of wet salt and carry them from one side of the compound—and these compounds were big. 

This was a city. It wasn’t like a gymnasium; it was like a city. 

Tens of thousands of people were there. 
They would have them carry the sack of wet salt from one side of the compound to the other, and then back. 

That was to make a mockery out of the notion that work would set you free. 
It’s like, no, no. 
You work here, but there’s nothing productive about it. 

The Whole Point is exactly The Opposite of Sacrifice, in some sense. 

We’re going to make you Act-Out working, but all it will do is speed your demise. 

And maybe we can decorate it up a little bit, because not only will it speed up your demise, it will do it in a very painful way, while simultaneously increasing the probability that other people’s demises will be painful and sped up. 

It’s a Work of Art. 
That’s for sure. 

To know about that sort of thing and to not regard it as Evil means…
Well, you can figure out what it means for yourself.

"And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived…" 

A fairly common criticism of these Biblical stories is, well, if Cain and Abel were the only two people from Adam and Eve, 
" Where did all these other people come from? "

Doesn’t that make the story simpleminded? 

No. That makes the reader simpleminded. 

I mean, really? 
That’s the best criticism of this you’re going to come up with? 

You might say, "ah, you missed The Point. "

That would be the right response: You Missed The Point.

"And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch, and he builded the city, and sold—" 

It’s Cain that builds the cities and starts the civilization. That’s pretty rough, too. It’s the first fratricidal murderer who builds the cities after the name of his son, Enoch.

"And unto Enoch was born Irad…" 

Et cetera, et cetera. I’m going through the generations. 

"And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other was Zillah." 

This is an attempt to flesh out the genealogy and describe to how culture started, in some sense, in these tribal communities. 

"And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. And Zillah, she also bear Tubalcain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron." 

Tubalcain, traditionally, is the first person who makes weapons of war. 

"And Lamech"—back to Lamech, descendent of Cain—"said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Heed my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. 

If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold."

Well, what I see in that is this proclivity of this murderous capacity of Cain manifesting itself, as society develops, to a murderous intent that transcends the mere Killing of a Brother. 

You Hurt Me; 
I Hurt You Back. 

No—you hurt me; I kill you and six other people. 

The thing that happens after that is, it’s not to make it seven people, but to make it seventy people. 

And so there’s this idea that once that first murderous seed is sown, it has this proclivity to manifest itself exponentially

That’s a warning. 

That’s also why, I think, Tubalcain, who’s one of Cain’s descendants, was the first person who made weapons of war.

And that’s pretty much the story of Cain and Abel. 

It’s a Hell of a Story, as far as I can tell. 
I think it’s worth thinking about pretty much forever. 
It has so many facets. 

I think the most usefully revealing of those facets is the potential for the story, once understood, to shed light on not your own failure

—not even on your rejection by being, let’s say

but on 
The Proclivity to Murder The Best,

and for 

Revenge Upon That Violation. 

What that means—and we know that knowledge of Good and Evil entered The World, so to speak, with Adam and Eve’s transgression—is that now, not only does humanity have to contend with tragedy and suffering, and even the unharvested fruits of proper sacrifice, but with the introduction of Real Malevolence into the world.

There’s The Fall into History, and then there’s the Discovery of Sacrifice as a medication for The Fall. 

And then there’s a counterposition, which is the emergence of Malevolence as The Enemy of Proper Sacrifice. 

The Lion

You watch those nature documentaries on The Cable? 

You see the one about Lions? 

You got this Lion - 
He's the King of The Jungle, huge mane out to here. 

He's laying under a tree, in the middle of Africa. 
He's so big, it's so hot. 
He doesn't want to move. 

Now the little lions come, they start messing with him - 
biting his tail, biting his ears. 

He doesn't do anything. 

The lioness, she starts messing with him. 

Coming over, making trouble. 

Still nothing. 

Now the other animals, they notice this. 
They start to move in. 

The Jackals. 
They're barking at him, laughing at him. 

They nip his toes,
 and eat the food that's 
in his domain

They do this, 
and they get closer and closer, 
bolder and bolder. 

Till one day, that Lion gets up 
Tears the shit out of everybody. 

Runs like the wind, eats everything in his path. 

Cause every once in a while, 
The Lion has to show The Jackals, 

Who He Is.

I Cannot Defeat This Klingon.

I Can Only Kill Him

and That No-Longer Holds My Interest.

The Royal Garden

Arguing with a Fool


Friday, 22 June 2018

Who Are You?

" I’m going to read you something. I get a lot of mail. I don’t know where I got this. I’ve been a lot of different places in the last week, and this showed up at one of them. I’m going to read it to you. I have no idea what to make of it.

It’s written in a female hand. That’s about all I can tell. There’s no address or name on it. 

" This isn’t a question but a comment—or, more accurately, perhaps, a message. I spent this past weekend in an Ayahuasca ceremony, which, for those of you who don’t know, is a South American visionary plant medicine. 

Some of you may roll your eyes at this, but Ayahuasca brings you into direct contact with the archetypal realm of being. 

Users of this medicine—initiates, I should say—refer to Ayahuasca as She, because the spirit of the plant is decidedly feminine, and an encounter with Ayahuasca is an encounter with the Great Mother Earth, Creation, The Goddess, The Void From Which All Things Come—

The feminine counterpart of Logos. 

" Dr. Peterson, you appeared in one of my Ayahuasca visions. "

It might account for why I’ve been rather fatigued lately. 

"Dr. Peterson, you appeared in one of my Ayahuasca visions, and I asked her, 

Who is Jordan Peterson? 
What is he doing?" 

Which is something I’d really like to know, as well. 

And she responded with crystalline clarity: 

" He is here to Invoke and Initiate 
The Divine Masculine Principle 
on Earth at This Time."

 So, I’m up here to thank you deeply and profoundly on behalf of the great mother herself, the goddess, the divine feminine principle who has been eagerly awaiting the awakening of the masculine principle into divinity and service. '

So…You don’t get a letter like that every day. 

Actually, I get a letter or two like that every day. 

Your Sins are Terrible

"If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door."

Well, I looked at lots of translations for this. Actually, the next line is, "And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."
Yes. What God actually says is something like this…Things aren’t going so well for you, but if you were behaving properly, they would

But, instead, This is What You’ve Done. 

Sin came to your door, and sin means to pull your arrow back and to miss the target. 

Sin came to your door. But he uses a metaphor. 

 The metaphor is something like, 

Sin came to your door like this sexually aroused cat-predator thing, and you invited it in. 

And then you let it have its way with you. 

 It’s like you entered into a creative—he uses a sexual metaphor. 

You entered into a creative exchange with it, and gave birth to something as a consequence. 

 What you gave birth to, that’s your life. 

And you knew it. 

You’re self-conscious, after all. 

You knew you were doing this. 

You conspired with this thing to produce the situation that you’re in.

[James Kirk has just seen Clark Terrell commit suicide and Pavel Andreievich Chekov collapse in agony.]
Kirk: Khan, you bloodsucker! You're gonna have to do your own dirty work now! Do you hear me? Do you?
Khan Noonien Singh: Kirk! You're still alive, my old friend!
Kirk: Still, old friend! You've managed to kill just about everyone else, but like a poor marksman, you keep missing The Target!
Khan: Perhaps I no longer need to try, Admiral. 
[beams up Genesis components]
Kirk: Khan! Khan, you've got Genesis, but you don't have me! You were going to kill me, Khan. You're going to have to come down here! You're going to have to come down here!
Khan: I've done far worse than kill you. I've hurt you, and I wish to go on hurting you. I shall leave you as you left me, as you left her: marooned for all eternity in the center of a dead planet, buried alive. [whispers] Buried alive!
Kirk: [exploding with rage, able to stand no more] KHHHHAAAAAAAAN!!! 
[cut to a shot of the planetoid] [echoing] 

Evil Bloody Well Exists

" There are some corners of The Universe which have bred the most terrible things....

Things that act against everything that we believe in...

They Must Be Fought. "

There are only 4 questions of value in Life, Don Octavio. 

• What is Sacred? 
• Of what is The Spirit made? 
• What is worth Living for, and 
• What is worth Dying for? 

The answer to each is the same: Only Love.

Some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. 

They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. 

Some men just want to watch the world burn.

The Cardinal: 
Any confession I may be said to have made in prison, will be a lie, or the result of human weakness.

The Interrogator:  

Every living soul in that sleeping city down there could be broken, if they had to be. The softer the mind, the more sensitive the conscience, the more surely they must be broken. That's the fascination - and the pity of it. 

The Interrogator:
He was broken by a half-truth, a distorted truth. He was too humble. He believed it when I told him his whole life was built on pride. A proud man would have been more skeptical. 

The Interrogator: You're an enemy of society, like the schizophrenic, of the paranoiac. You're dangerous, because you mislead the poor, the uneducated, the silly. Only because you're wrongheaded. In time, we'll get to the root of the trouble. And you can be cured.

The Cardinal: Your believe it?

The Interrogator: Yes, I do believe it.

The Cardinal: God give me cunning against your skill.

The Interrogator:  
We're up against a good man. He's got to show us where his weakness lies before we can use it - to destroy him. Meanwhile, we must wait

[sits down at his chessboard]

Thursday, 21 June 2018

The Fates

No Fate 
But What We Make for Ourselves

 "Babies are sort of like public property, weirdly enough, too—sort of like pregnant women. 

People often treat pregnant women sort of like they’re public property, too—in a positive way. 

They do all sorts of cute things."

You might say, how good a job do you do of encouraging your children to live in truth? That’s part of the answer to this question. The answer likely is, you don’t do as good a job of it as you could. It works out quite well, but you don’t know how well it could work if you did it really well, or spectacularly well, or ultimately well, or something like that. You don’t know.

People have an intimation of this. One of the things that’s really cool about having a young baby…There’s two things you don’t know…There’s a lot more than two. There’s three things you don’t know until you have a baby. The one is that you didn’t grow up yet. You actually don’t grow up until someone else is more important than you. You can’t. People think they grow up if they don’t have children, but they don’t. They just think they do. Now, there are some people who make sacrifices of other sorts, but this is a whole different ball of wax, as far as I’m concerned. It’s not a very elegant metaphor, but…You learn that it’s kinda a relief not to be the center of attention. That’s cool—that you can sit back, because, of course, your child, in your family, and in society, is immediately the center of attention. Unless you’re narcissistic, then you allow that to happen. And then you learn all sorts of really good things about other people.

Other people really like babies. It’s so cool. I lived in Montreal when we had our first child. I lived in a pretty rough neighbourhood, by Montreal standards. It’s like, Montreal’s such a great city, like Toronto. Even the rough neighbourhoods are more like charming with a little dark underbelly. Something like that. But there were some rough characters in our neighbourhood, and it was pretty poor, and we’d push her around in her stroller. These grizzled, wrecked, old guys would come by, look at her, and just light up. They’d come over and smile at her, and you just saw the positive element of their humanity well worth. There has to be something seriously wrong with you if you don’t respond that way to a baby. That’s not good. But it was so cool to see these people, who you’d generally kind of walk around on the street, and, all of a sudden, the layers that were on them would just fall off. The babies are sort of like public property, weirdly enough, too—sort of like pregnant women. People often treat pregnant women sort of like they’re public property, too—in a positive way. They do all sorts of cute things.

The reason I’m telling you that is because there’s a strong impulse in people to know that there’s something miraculous about the existence of a new human being. The miraculous element is all the potential that’s there. Potential is all that is there. With every birth, there’s the potential for something remarkable to be introduced in the world. One of the things I’ve thought, too, is that babies are generic until you have one. Your baby isn’t a generic baby, at all. Instantly, it’s a person with whom you have a relationship that’s closer, perhaps, than every relationship you’ve ever had, and that you can keep perfect, right? Most of the relationships that you’ve had already are with people who are screwed up in 50 different ways, and so are you, but here you’ve got this baby. It’s not ruined, yet. You have this possibility of maintaining this relationship that starts out—that baby really likes you, and generally that continues for quite a long time. They’re two years old, you come home, and they’re really happy to see you. It’s kind of like having a puppy. It’s like, they’re thrilled when you come home. How many people are thrilled when you come home? It’s like, oh, it’s you again. No, not a little kid. A little kid is thrilled when you come home, and you can keep that going. There’s this pristine element to the potential relationship between parents and children that’s terribly devalued in our society. It’s almost as if we’re willfully blind to it. I think it’s an absolute catastrophe, because there’s very little in life that can compare to establishing a proper relationship with a child. They make great company if you keep your relationship with them pristine.

It’s worthwhile. The reason I’m telling you this is because people look at infants and they think this could be the potential saviour of mankind. That is what they think. That’s how they act, so that’s how they think. The thing is, it’s also true. Now, how true it is, I don’t know. But that’s, I think, probably because people don’t dare to find out. That’s how it looks to me.

"In Christ’s case, however—as He sacrificed Himself—God, his Father, is simultaneously sacrificing His Son. 

It’s for this reason that the Christian sacrificial drama of Son and Self is archetypal. 

Nothing greater can be imagined. 

That’s why it’s an archetype: you can’t push past it. 

That’s the very definition of ‘archetypal.’ That’s the core of what constitutes ‘religious.’ 

The greatest of all possible sacrifices is self and child. 

Of that there can be no doubt."

Pain and suffering define the world. 

Of that, equally, there can be no doubt. 

The person who wants to alleviate suffering—who wants to bring about The Best of All Possible Futures; 

Who wants to create Heaven on Earth—

Will therefore sacrifice everything he has to God—

To Life in The Truth."

I Do. 

You know, I’m 1500 years old. 
I’ve killed twice as many enemies as that. 
And every one of them would have rather killed me than not succeeded. 

I’m only alive because fate wants me alive. 

Thanos is just the latest of a long line of bastards, and he’ll be the latest to feel my vengeance. 

Fate wills it so. 

Capt. Rocket: 
And what if you’re wrong?

Well, if I’m wrong, what more could I lose?

I could lose a lot. Me, personally? I could lose a lot.

So I do feel that there are profound differences between the sexes in terms of emotions, in terms of communication patterns. 

My father used to say that he could never follow women’s conversations. 

He said 'Women don’t even finish sentences', 

[ Because they don't have to ]

that women understand immediately what the other woman is saying. 

And women tend to be more interested in - or have been traditionally more interested in - soap operas. It’s not just that the women were home without jobs. It’s that honestly, I believe that soap opera does reflect, does mirror, the way women talk to each other. 

These communication patterns have been built up through women - The World of Women, which. . . It made sense that there was a division of labor. 

It wasn’t sexism against women that there was a division of labor. 

The men went off to hunt and did the dangerous things. 

The women stayed around The Hearth because you had pregnant women, nursing women, older women, that were cooking and so on.
So I feel that these communication patterns that we’re talking about have been built up over the centuries. 

Men had to toughen each other to go out. 

The hunting parties of Native Americans. . .
 They could be gone for two weeks when the temperature was below zero. 

Many of them died

[ Just as a lot of the women died in childbirth, too - that's equally dangerous ]

The idea that somehow. . .  

‘Oh, any kind of separation of the sexes, or different spheres of the sexes, is inherently sexist’. . . 

That is wrong. 

Luckily we’ve been, what would you call, invaded by stupid terrorists instead of smart terrorists, because a smart terrorist could do an unbelievable amount of damage in a very short period of time. And it’s just God’s good graces that that hasn’t happened yet. 

What will happen is that it’s The Men. . . The Men will reconstruct civilization while the women cower in the houses and have The Men go out and do all the dirty work. 

That’s what’s going to happen again

Only men will bring civilization back again.


 The Tyger
By William Blake

Tyger Tyger, burning bright,
In the forests of the night;
What immortal hand or eye,
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies.
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand, dare seize the fire?

And what shoulder, & what art,
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand? & what dread feet?

What the hammer? what the chain,
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp,
Dare its deadly terrors clasp!

When the stars threw down their spears
And water'd heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?

Tyger Tyger burning bright,
In the forests of the night:
What immortal hand or eye,
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?


Thursday, 14 June 2018

When Adam Delved and Eve Span, Who Was Then The Gentleman?

gentleman (n.)

c. 1200, perhaps mid-12c., "well-born man, man of good family or birth," also extended to Roman patricians and ancient Greek aristocrats, from gentle + man (n.); the compound probably is modeled on Old French gentilhomme (the English gentleman itself was borrowed into French in 18c.).

Given specific uses in late Middle English (small gentleman, gentleman-of-arms, gentleman-usher, etc.), hence in England the word often meant any man above the social rank of a yeoman, including the nobility, but it was sometimes restricted to those who bear a coat of arms but not a title; in U.S., "man of property, not engaged in business or a profession" (1789). The English word from the beginning also had a special sense "nobleman whose behavior conforms to the ideals of chivalry and Christianity," and gentleman came to be used loosely for any man of good breeding, courtesy, kindness, honor, strict regard for the feelings of others, etc.

The Gentleman is always truthful and sincere; will not agree for the sake of complaisance or out of weakness ; will not pass over that of which he disapproves. He has a clear soul, and a fearless, straightforward tongue. On the other hand he is not blunt and rude. His truth is courteous; his courtesy, truthful; never a humbug, yet, where he truthfully can, he prefers to say pleasant things. [J.R. Vernon, "Contemporary Review," 1869]

Eventually, in polite use, it came to mean a man in general, regardless of social standing. Related: Gentlemen. Gentleman's agreement is first attested 1929. Gentleman farmer recorded from 1749, "A man of means who farms on a large scale, employs hands, and does little or none of the work himself" [Craigie, "Dictionary of American English"].

You Think Captain Phasma Knows How to Fix a Toilet Main..?

Between The Fall and Rise of Civilisations...

You Think Captain Phasma Knows How to Fix a Toilet Main..?

All's She Knows is Killin' and Chrome Armour....

[ Which is Fabulous, By The Way.... ]

"It made sense that there was a Division of Labor. 

It wasn’t sexism against women that there was a Division of Labor.

The men went off to hunt and did 
the dangerous things.

[ Excluding Childbirth. ]

What will happen is that it’s The Men will reconstruct civilization while the women cower in the houses and 
Have The Men Go Out 
and do 
All The Dirty Work. 

That’s what’s going to happen again. 

Only men will bring civilization back again.

You Have Never Seen This Before...?

Civilisation - Ancient and Wicked

Paglia: Well I’ve seen - I don’t know if this crosses into other countries - that there’s a certain kind of taunting and teasing that men, that boys do with each other that toughens them, where they don’t take things seriously. But a girl’s feelings become extremely hurt if she hears something that’s very tough, sarcastic against her. So I do feel that there are profound differences between the sexes in terms of emotions, in terms of communication patterns.

My father used to say that he could never follow women’s conversations. He said women don’t even finish sentences, that women understand immediately what the other woman is saying.

And women tend to be more interested in - or have been traditionally more interested in - soap operas. It’s not just that the women were home without jobs. It’s that honestly, I believe that soap opera does reflect, does mirror, the way women talk to each other.

These communication patterns have been built up through women - The World of Women, which. . . It made sense that there was a division of labor. 

It wasn’t sexism against women that there was a division of labor.

The men went off to hunt and did the dangerous things.

The women stayed around the hearth because you had pregnant women, nursing women, older women, that were cooking and so on.

So I feel that these communication patterns that we’re talking about have been built up over the centuries.

Men had to toughen each other to go out. The hunting parties of Native Americans. . . They could be gone for two weeks when the temperature was below zero. Many of them died. 

The idea that somehow. . . ‘Oh, any kind of separation of the sexes, or different spheres of the sexes, is inherently sexist’. . . 

That is wrong.

Peterson: And "inherently driven by a power dynamic"!

Paglia: The answer to all of this, everything that we’re talking about, is education into early history. 

Until people understand the Stone Age, the nomadic period, the agrarian era, and how culture, how civilization built up. . . 

In Mesopotamia - the great irrigation projects.

Or in Egypt where you had. . . Centralized government authority became necessary to master these. . . 

You had a situation, an environmentally difficult situation like the deserts Mesopotamia, or the peculiar character of Egyptian geography where you can only have a little tiny fertile line along the edges of the Nile. Otherwise, desert landscape.

So [understanding] civilization and authority as not necessarily about power grabbing but about organization to achieve something for the good of the people as a whole. 

Peterson: That’s exactly the great symbolism of The Great Father.

Paglia: By reducing all hierarchy to power, and selfish power, is utterly naive. It’s ignorant. 

I say education has to be totally reconstituted, including public education, to begin in the most distant past so our young people today, who know nothing about how the world was created that they inhabit, can understand what a marvelous technological paradise they live in. And it’s the product of capitalism, it’s the product of individual innovation. Most of it’s the product of a Western tradition that everyone wants to trash now. If you begin in the past and show. . . And also talk about war, because war is the one thing that wakes people up, as we see.

Peterson: And as we may see.

Paglia: Yes, War is The Reality Principle.

My father and five of my uncles went to World War II. My father was part of the force that landed in Japan. 

He was a paratrooper at the time of the Japanese surrender. And a couple of uncles got shot up and so on. 

When you have the reality of war, when people see the reality, the horrors of war - Berlin burned to a crisp and so on. Starvation and all. . . 

Then you understand this marvelous mechanism that brings water to the kitchen. 

And you flip on a light and the electricity turns on.

Peterson: I know, for me, and I suppose it’s because I have somewhat of a depressive temperament. . . 

I mean one thing that staggers me on a consistent basis is the fact that anything ever works. 

Because it’s so unlikely, you know, to be in a situation where our electronic communications work, where our electric grid works. 

And it works all the time, it works one hundred percent of the time.

And the reason for that is there are mostly men out there who are breaking themselves into pieces, repairing this thing which just falls apart all the time. 

Paglia: Absolutely. I said this in the Munk Debate in Toronto several years ago. All these elitists and professors sneering at men. It’s men who are maintaining everything around us.

This invisible army which feminists don’t notice. 

Nothing would work if it weren’t for the men. 

Peterson: A professor is someone who’s standing on a hill surrounded by a wall, which is surrounded by another wall, which is surrounded by another wall - it’s walls all the way down - who stands up there and says I’m brave and independent.

It’s like, you’ve got this protected area that’s so unlikely - it’s so absolutely unlikely - and the fact that people aren’t on their knees in gratitude all the time for the fact that we have central heating and air conditioning and pure water and reliable food. . . It’s absolutely unbelievable.

Paglia: Yes, I mean people used to die. . . The water supply was contaminated with cholera for heaven’s sake. 

People don’t understand. 

To have clean water, fresh milk, fresh orange juice. 

All of these things. These are marvels.

Peterson: And all of the time.

Paglia: All of the time. Western culture is heading - because we are so dependent on this invisible infrastructure - we’re heading for an absolute catastrophe when jihadists figure out how to paralyze the power grid. The entire culture will be chaotic. You’ll have mobs in the street within three days when suddenly the food supply is interrupted and there’s no way to communicate. That is the way Western culture is going to collapse. 

And it won’t take much.

Peterson: Single points of failure.

Paglia: Because we are so interconnected, and now we’re so dependent on communications and computers. . . I used to predict for years it’ll be an asteroid hitting the earth, and then we’ll have another ice age. 

Peterson: Do you know how the solar flares work? 

This happens about once every century. 

So back about 1880 - I don’t remember the exact year - there was a significant enough solar flare. . . 

So that produces an electromagnetic pulse like a hydrogen bomb because the sun is a hydrogen bomb. 

An electromagnetic pulse will emerge from the sun and wave across the earth, and it produces huge spikes in electrical current along anything that’s electronic, and it will burn them out.

It lit telegraph operators on fire in the 1800s. One of those things took out the Quebec power grid in 1985 and knocked out the whole Northeast Corridor. So they figure those things are about one in a century event.

My brother-in-law, who’s a very smart guy. . . He designed the chip in the iPhone. We were talking about political issues the last time I went and saw him in San Francisco, and his notion was that all that the government should be doing right now is stress- testing our infrastructure the same way they stress-test the banks.

Because we’re so full of these single points of failure. And I think you’re absolutely right.

Luckily we’ve been, what would you call, invaded by stupid terrorists instead of smart terrorists, because a smart terrorist could do an unbelievable amount of damage in a very short period of time. And it’s just God’s good graces that that hasn’t happened yet. 

Paglia: What will happen is that it’s The Men. . . The Men will reconstruct civilization while the women cower in the houses and have The Men go out and do all the dirty work. That’s what’s going to happen again. Only men will bring civilization back again.