Thursday, January 25, 2018

Interview: Thomas Perry Discusses his novel 'The Old Man'

January 2, 2017
Image result for thomas perry old man
Dan Chase, the protagonist in Thomas Perry’s riveting new novel, THE OLD MAN, lives a quiet life in Vermont. He’s a 60-year-old retiree who takes great pleasure in walking his two loyal mutts. He’s a devoted father and grandfather who keeps in touch with his daughter by phone. Though he desperately misses his late wife, he’s generally content. Then a car appears on his tranquil street and everything changes. The driver has come to kill him for an incident that occurred 35 years earlier. To survive, Dan Chase must reawaken his survival instincts and fight a private war against younger, better-equipped, and decidedly lethal adversaries. Dan’s story takes us on a tense, often chilling ride across the United States and all the way to hostile regions of Libya.
The most compelling thrillers effectively explore how old missteps and a violent past can shatter the life of an apparently ordinary person, and THE OLD MAN certainly accomplishes that, at the same time keeping the reader turning the pages. Perry has kindly agreed to share his thoughts on THE OLD MAN, his writing process, and his future projects.
THE OLD MAN tells the story of Dan Chase, a retired 60-year-old widower who lives in Vermont and who enjoys walking his two large dogs. Yet, Dan isn’t exactly who he seems. What motivates Dan?
As a young military intelligence operator 35 years ago Chase made an ill-considered decision motivated by a misplaced but noble sense of duty.  After delivering U.S. aid money to a middleman, he learned the middleman kept the money instead of delivering it to Libyan rebels. He retrieved most of the money and brought it home to the U.S., but his superiors tried to arrest him and blame him for the deaths of the rebels who went unsupplied. Enraged, he held onto the money and disappeared.  Thirty-five years later, he has been married and widowed, raised a daughter who’s become a doctor, and lived a good life.  But now, someone has come for him—not to arrest him, but to kill him. His motivation now is simply to stay alive.
You’ve set your novel in Vermont, the Chicago area, the mountains above Los Angeles, Toronto, Canada, and Libya, among other locations.  How did you go about creating such vivid settings?
The settings are places a man like Chase guesses he can fit in and not be easily found.  His best bet is to use the false identities he’s prepared and seem as unremarkable as he can.  I live in Los Angeles and I’ve spent time in places like Chicago, Vermont, and Toronto. Libya is only researched and imagined.
Dan is 60 years old, and yet he’s able to defend himself against multiple assailants, most or all of whom are young enough to be his children. You’ve done a masterful job in making these scenes realistic. What were the challenges in portraying a mature man in combat against younger attackers?
Chase is past his prime, but he’s a trained combat and special ops veteran who has spent the years since then aware that he could be attacked at any time and need to fight.  He’s remained unusually fit.  When a younger man sees him, the assumption is “Old man, no problem.” But Chase is ready, strikes first, and does what he can to his opponent, not just what he hopes will be sufficient.
In the course of the novel, Dan commits a number of violent acts and manipulates other’s emotions. At the same time, he has great love and loyalty to those dear to him. How were you able to combine those conflicting characteristics in your protagonist?
I think that these contrasting qualities are present in most people, and more pronounced in some.  A couple of weeks ago at the Las Vegas Book Festival I attended a talk by a Congressional Medal of Honor winner who had carried out a hopeless plan to break a siege of his outpost in Afghanistan before it could be overrun. For the hours before relief arrived he was violence incarnate, but he spoke of his comrades and his wife and kids with a love that was moving to the audience.  I tried to put a little bit of that in Chase.
Chase operates on the most basic law of the planet—if someone is trying to kill you, there are no rules.  He also knows that often the best way to protect himself against overwhelming odds is to manipulate others instead of dealing honestly with them.  He does this to Zoe McDonald.  By subletting a couple of rooms in her big apartment for cash he can buy a couple of months of invisibility, because only her name is on the lease, the utility bills, etc.  When she begins to fall for him, he sees this as a new way of strengthening his hold on her and prolonging his period of safety.
Image result for thomas perry old man
Putting aside Dan Chase, who is your favorite character in THE OLD MAN, and why?  
I suppose I have two favorites. I like James Harriman (also an alias), the young African American special ops contractor sent after Chase. He’s a lot like Chase probably was in his twenties.  They’re patriots, they’re both trained by the same organization to further U.S. interests abroad, and they’ve needed to do violent things for that cause. They both have learned from experience that the system doesn’t really care for them.  Their shared loyalty to the country is paired with a sense of justice, and forces them to behave in similar ways.  I also like Zoe, the woman Chase exploits to stay alive.  I find her situation as a middle-aged woman whose life has toppled around her—failed marriage, one child who is a disappointing jerk and one who’s probably always going to be far away, a bit too old to pursue her musical career now—to be interesting, and I like her response to the challenges.
You’ve written and produced television shows. What are the differences in writing a TV script and a novel? And does your entertainment-industry background help you write novels?
Any writing experience is good, which is probably why so many reporters, lawyers, and advertising people are writing good books.  Writing for TV is a good way to learn lots of things.  You learn to work with the inflexible discipline imposed by the calendar.  When a script is due it’s got to be ready.  There is also a value to being one of a group of professional writers who try to be both critical and helpful.  Being forced to think hard about how to keep an audience’s attention is good too.  It helps a writer to think about issues like pacing, how long a single speech can be, and how long a scene can be.  Hearing dialogue spoken rather than read exposes flaws—pompous wording, false notes, clichés.  The only negatives I can think of are that television writing can be grueling, and the writer is doing a work for payment, not pursuing a free and unlimited play of the imagination.
You’ve written both series and standalone novels. What do you find gratifying about each approach? Are there downsides to either, and if so, what?
When I started writing, I always told myself I’d never write a series.  I wanted to write the best novels I could, and very few great novels were anything but standalone books.  That went fine until I finished Vanishing Act, about Jane Whitefield, a half-Seneca woman who takes in people who have reason to believe they’re about to be murdered and makes them disappear.  I’d finished the book, but I knew much more about the character that I still wanted to say, so I started a sequel, and the series was launched.  I also found that from time to time I get curious about the protagonist of The Butcher’s Boy, my first novel, so after 10 years I wrote a sequel, and after 30, I got curious about him again. A series allows a writer to exercise these urges to revisit a character.  But standalone books give him a chance to free his imagination to find and invent new ones.
Who are some of your favorite writers? Can you include one or two NON-thriller/mystery writers among them? 
I was an English major and then went to graduate school for my Ph.D., so I spent a lot of my early years reading.  My real favorites are still the books of Joseph Conrad, William Faulkner, Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Herman Melville, E.M. Forster, and so on.  As for mystery and thriller writers, I would rather not simply add to the applause for fine established writers, even though some are friends.  I try to read as many new authors as I can each year, and I’d like to mention a few of this year’s stand-outs: Every Man a Menace by Patrick Hoffman, The Coaster by Erich Wurster, The Prometheus Man by Scott Reardon.
In THE OLD MAN, you write about, among other things, the workings of firearms, the NSA’s method of locating fugitives, the Libyan tribal structure, and the ways in which a person can hide his or her identity. Could you describe how you do your research?
I’ve often said that research is what you do when you don’t feel like writing, but want to preserve the illusion of progress.  Most of my research is of two kinds: reading, listening, observing, and collecting interesting ideas in an undirected way, or going after a particular piece of information I need until I find what I can know about it.  I also subscribe to a number of magazines with different subjects and points of view, including one gun magazine, which keeps me informed of what’s new in firearms.
Writing conferences are rife with advice for aspiring writers. What advice would you give to authors who’ve published several novels but who haven’t yet broken out?
The first thing I’d like to suggest to them is that maybe “breaking out” isn’t the best goal for a career.  It’s something that might happen to a writer rather than something he can do.  There are a few writers whose names we all know and see on every bestseller list the day their books are published.  Some of them are very good writers, and some are very bad writers. Few of us will ever be one of those names, no matter what we do.  The most accessible goal is to learn to be a better writer.  We can all do that.  It will always be good for us, and it may even make us more likely to be noticed.
Would you describe your writing process? Outlining or not, places you write, hours per day?
My writing process has evolved with changes in my life.  When our kids were young, I used to drive them to school and come home to work until my wife picked them up from school at the end of the day.  I would try to be available to them whenever they were home, which probably convinced them that I never did any actual work.  Now my wife and I sit at two desks 10 feet apart and write from the time we return from taking our dogs to the park for a run until we need to stop to take them out in the late afternoon.  I write in longhand on plain typing paper until I have a big chunk of story, and then type the second draft into a laptop.  I never outline unless I’m wondering if I might be lost.
Please tell us about your next project.
My next book features a man who makes and plants bombs.

Wednesday, January 24, 2018

What Right Not to Be Offended?


A Canadian professor questions a key tenet of current Leftist thinking.

Ben Shapiro
January 24, 2018

Image result for jordan peterson newman
Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman

Earlier this week, Professor Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto burst into the international headlines again, this time thanks to a shockingly polite interview with British interviewer Cathy Newman. The entire interview was an insipid exercise in Newman attempting to cram her own words into Peterson’s mouth; as Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic points out, Newman’s technique was to “restate what [Peterson] said so as to make it seem as if [his] view is offensive, hostile, or absurd.” Peterson, with the patience and mildness of a saint, doggedly refused to be boxed in that way.

But the segment of the interview that grabbed the public’s imagination wasn’t Peterson’s discussion of the wage gap or the biology of hierarchical relationships. It was a very simple exchange over the value of truth. Newman questioned Peterson on why he refused to go along with the trendy Leftist cause du jour: using pronouns chosen by individuals rather than pronouns that describe their biology. “Why should your freedom of speech trump a trans person’s right not to be offended?” Newman asked. Peterson, ever the gentleman, answered the question without guffawing: “Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive. I mean, look at the conversation we’re having right now. You’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth. Why should you have the right to do that? It’s been rather uncomfortable.”

Newman misdirected: “Well, I’m very glad I’ve put you on the spot.” But Peterson pursued: “Well, you get my point. You’re doing what you should do, which is digging a bit to see what the hell is going on. And that is what you should do. But you’re exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me, and that’s fine. More power to you, as far as I’m concerned.”

Newman had no answer. Point to Peterson.

But despite Peterson’s obvious logic, the Left refuses to concede this particular point. Any statement — any statement — must be gauged not only on the basis of its truth-value, according to the Left, but on the basis of whether such truth is likely to offend — or, at last, whether such truth is likely to offend groups the Left perceives as victimized. According to the Left, any and all truth must take a back seat to “your truth,” so long as you claim minority status in any way.

There’s heavy irony to the fact that Victorian prudishness of manners suddenly abounds on the same Left that champions wearing pussyhats and shouting its abortions. But it’s that Victorian prudishness that tends to win the day — or at least has, for the past several decades. Perhaps that’s because many on the right tend to value manners; good religious men and women studiously avoid causing offense if they have the capacity to do so. It’s worked, too. The Left has wielded the Right’s preference for manners as a club against the Right, claiming offense in order to cow them into silence.

Of late, however, the Left has simply gone too far. No longer do they ask whether objectively offensive statements ought to be made; they now take each statement and ask whether it is subjectively offensive to anyone. First person to claim offense wins. Which is precisely why Peterson’s logic trips up Newman: He plays her own card against her. By demonstrating that anyone can be offended by anything, he returns the conversation from the vague recesses of subjective reaction to the hard and fast ground of objective truth.

This is the ground on which conservatives should fight, of course: acknowledgement that while manners matter, truth matters more. Unfortunately, too many conservatives have responded to Leftist censorship not with truth-above-manners politeness, but with theatrical displays of unconcern with manners themselves. Rudeness is now seen as a substitute for facts. If the Left uses manners as a weapon, the logic goes, let’s just discard manners altogether.

But there’s no reason to do that. We all ought to behave with decency and truth. Those are the twin pillars of conservatism, after all: virtue and reason. Discarding reason undermines virtue by replacing virtue with emotion-based reactivity; discarding virtue undermines the social fabric necessary to undergird the effectiveness of reason. Yes, let’s behave with manners. But let’s recognize that only a society that values truth can afford manners.


— Ben Shapiro is the editor in chief of the Daily Wire.

Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Mythologies of Illegal Immigration

January 21, 2018
Image result for daca protest
The illegal immigration debate has come to a head once again. Congress remains at an impasse over a temporary spending bill that Senate Democrats refuse to support unless it includes a provision that would allow several hundred thousand illegal aliens to remain in the United States without fear of deportation. It’s a tiresome ploy by the Democrats, abetted by their allies in the media, using deceptive language to paint a false picture that blurs the distinction between legal and illegal, citizen and foreigner, justice and injustice.
Enough obfuscation. Here are some of the most pernicious myths of illegal immigration, debunked.
The System is “Broken”Broken for whom exactly? Not for Mexico and Latin America. Together they garner $50 billion in annual remittances. The majority of such transfers are likely sent from illegal aliens.
Some of that largess is also subsidized by the entitlements American taxpayers pay that free up this disposable cash for sending abroad. In the eyes of Mexico and Latin America, the only thing that would make our system appear “broken” would be enforcing existing U.S. immigration law.
Or perhaps “broken” would be defined as novel ways of paying for Trump’s wall—by either taxing remittances or so discouraging illegal immigration that a reduction of dollar outflows could be counted (at least rhetorically) as down payments on border construction.
The immigration system is also clearly not broken for the Democratic Party. It has turned California blue. It soon will do the same to Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico, and someday may flip Arizona and Texas.
If the statist, redistributionist, and identity politics principles of the Democrats no longer appeal to 51 percent of the electorate, then why would they give up on the annual investment in nearly hundreds of thousands of new arrivals that by some means, and in the not too distant future, would translate into loyal, politically predictable voters for whom this approach to politics is second nature?
Employers believe the system is anything but broken. Any good news for the country about skyrocketing minority employment numbers is likely to be bad news for them if it means declining numbers of cheaper illegal aliens to hire. Open borders have ensured the hiring of industrious workers at cheap wages while passing on the accruing health, educational, legal, and criminal justice costs to the taxpayer. The present system is “working” well enough for this crowd; its possible replacement instead would be defined as “broken.”
Ethnic tribunes support illegal immigration. If the border were closed and the melting pot allowed to work, the façade of identity politics would vanish in a generation.
Recently added accents would be dropped. Hyphenated names would disappear. Trilled r’s would become rare. La Raza/Chicano/Latino Studies programs would become about as popular as Basque or Portuguese. If immigrants from Mexico came in measured numbers, legally, with high-school diplomas, and along with diverse immigrants from all over the world, then rapid assimilation and integration would soon render them politically individuals, not tribes. Someone like California Senate Leader Kevin de León (born Kevin Alexander Leon) would never have needed a preposition and an accent mark.
Broken? More likely, most welcomed.
Illegal aliens, of course, believe the present system is working well, at least compared to the possible alternatives. Legal applicants, still faithfully believing in a now-nonexistent system, wait in line. Those south of the border simply cross.
The moment Mexican citizens—unlike Poles, Australians, or Koreans—reach American soil they or their children, in theory, will become categorized as a minority eligible for government affirmative action and preferred hiring. It is as if Los Angeles or Reno had something to do with the centuries-long racial oppression by an ethnically Spanish-legacy elite 500 miles south of the border.
American elites welcome illegal immigration, both for the cheap labor and for the opportunity to virtue signal their magnanimity, perhaps as much as they seem rarely to live adjacent to the barrio or keep their children in schools that are impacted by immigrants, and or shop where English is rarely spoken.
In sum, the system is working for everyone. It is broken only for the naïfs who worry over the long-term consequences of rendering the law null and void, and of ceding our culture to arriving populations for the most part not yet accustomed to the habits that sustain personal and political freedom.
But the “Dreamers”!There are 700,000-800,000 DACA recipients, though no one knows the exact numbers. Nor is there a clear definition of who constitutes the population of the “Dreamers,” other than arriving into the United States illegally as a minor. It is an ossified concept, one frozen in amber, given that the average age of a so-called “Dreamer” around 25. When a Dreamer reaches 40, is he still defined as a Dreamer? Or have his “dreams” already come true?
Naturally, minors should not be penalized for the transgressions of their parents. But a large percentage of the DACA cohort is now six or more years into adulthood. Yet upon turning 18 apparently, most have made little effort to obtain either green cards or citizenship.
College graduation and military service are often referenced as DACA talking points. In truth, some studies suggest that just one in 20 dreamers graduated from college. One in a 1,000 has served in the military. So far, about eight times more Dreamers have not graduated from high school than have graduated from college.
Dreamers represent less than 10 percent of all illegal aliens residing in the United States. They are also a fraction of the ignored millions of foreign students from all over the world who seek, often in vain, to study in the United States or are skilled applicants for green cards. Such depressing statistics about DACA might not matter—if supporters of open borders did not always cite incomplete or misleading data.
Weaponizing the LanguageMost of the vocabulary surrounding illegal immigration is both politicized and weaponized—as we have seen with “Dreamers.”
Illegal immigration is conflated with legal immigration in order to smear critics with charges of biases against the “other” rather than of simply expressing concerns over legality and sovereignty. By progressive prepping of the linguistic battlefield, some conservatives feel a continued need to “prove” they are not racists by granting more and more exemptions from immigration laws.
“Sanctuary cities” are not “sanctuaries” in the manner we think of a cathedral in a Victor Hugo novel. They are nullification centers where foreign nationals who have broken laws are not subject to full enforcement of immigration laws, due entirely to political considerations.
“Sanctuary city” is not an abstract philosophical term. None of the current sanctuary cities would agree in principle with other jurisdictions in similar fashion nullifying federal laws that advanced left-wing policy objectives. The sobriquet is a euphemism for 1850s-style proto-Confederate, states-rights chauvinism, dressed up similarly in pseudo-moralistic terms.
“Undocumented immigrant” suggests that the problem is a matter of forgetting to bring legal documents, rather than a decision to ignore the need for legal authorization. To become “un-documented” one might first have had to become “documented.” Yet almost no illegal aliens ever were registered as immigrant applicants.
“Undocumented” replaced the adjective “illegal,” just as “immigrant” (and increasingly just “migrant”) superseded the noun “alien.” That is, when the Democratic Party realized that swelling Latino populations began to vote en masse and could salvage what its failing message could not.
At that point, around 2010 or so, the old Democratic and progressive admonitions about illegal immigration cutting the wages of the poor, impeding unionization, and siphoning away social welfare entitlements from the citizen poor were finally and completely jettisoned (along with the language once used by Jimmy Carter and the Clintons). Euphemisms replaced descriptive vocabulary in efforts to construct a new reality.
“Diversity” is often associated with illegal immigration. In fact, the majority of illegal immigrants come from Latin American and Mexico. They are hardly diverse. Real diversity would be recalibrating immigration to be legal, meritocratic, and aimed at roughly equal representation from Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Europe—and thus politically unpredictable.
Political Epithets: Racism and XenophobiaThe cargo of illiberal accusations is likewise constructed, given the United States is the most pro-Latino country in the world, Mexico included. Half of all immigrants, both legal and illegal, come either from Mexico or Latin America—a sort of inverse racism that assumes illegal Spanish-speaking immigrants are intrinsically more deserving of U.S. residence than legal immigration applicants from Uganda, South Korea, or Ukraine.
The constitution of Mexico carefully delineates all sorts of offices that are not open to naturalized citizens. It lists a variety of immigration offenses that result in automatic deportation or imprisonment—the constant theme being Mexico wants skilled immigrants who can help Mexico (consistent with its constitutional prohibitions against any immigration that might adversely affect “the equilibrium of the national demographics”).
What is also not diverse is Mexico and Latin America. The vast majorities of the population there share roughly similar ethnic heritages and a common language and religion; small numbers of minorities such as blacks are treated as second-class citizens.
Strange, too, are the outward theatrics and themes of illegal alien activism—the frequent waving of Mexican flags, the often loud criticism of a generous host country, the usual demands made upon a foreign nation—mysteriously coupled with the overwhelming desire of millions to enter or remain in the supposedly demonic United States. Waving a flag of a country that one does not wish to return to while shunning the flag of a country in which one very much wishes to reside is incoherent.
What is humane and progressive is defining people by the content of their character rather than by their superficial appearance or ethnic affinities—a notion contrary to the engine of identity politics. Finally, many ethnic activists are accepting that reality. Why otherwise would the National Council of La Razabelatedly at last drop the nomenclature of “The Race” shortly after the 2016 election to become UnidosUS(“us united”)?
Is America Great or Not?The entire image of the United States has been smeared in most discussions of illegal immigration.
The thrust of ethnic studies departments, the narratives of open borders activists, the pageantry and symbolism of mass immigration demonstrations, and the chauvinism embedded into popular culture is mostly couched in implicit anti-Americanism. At least we are led to believe that a culpable America has done wrong in the present and the past, and has to restore its morality by allowing open borders and illegal immigration. But who are the arbiters of American ethics? Vicente Fox? MS-13 gang-bangers? Those whose first act in entering America was to break its laws?
Millions are fleeing paradigms that they apparently judged as wanting, either politically, economically, or socially, or all that and more. Why, then, would foreign nationals have ceased romanticizing their new generous hosts upon their arrival and begun idealizing, instead, their rejected birthplace? And if these are their true feelings on the matter, why did they leave?
Second, there rarely is expressed any formal analysis of why one wishes to enter the United States and leave one’s home country.
What, then, exactly makes a naturally rich Mexico rather poor and naturally poor New Mexico rather rich? Why is Venezuela a mess and Colorado is not? Has anyone prohibited Mexico from reformatting its constitution to ensure an independent judiciary, the rule of law, a free-market economy, the protection and free sale of private property, a bill of rights, unfettered free speech, a meritocratic civil service, transparency in law enforcement, and an ethnically blind culture?
The question is not just mindless American boosterism. In the past, immigrants accepted that they had left Ireland, Italy, or Poland because habits, customs, and government in their home countries were deemed wanting and unworkable, and therefore it was necessary to embrace their antitheses in the United States. It would have made no sense to flee from Italy and expect to live life in America on the premises that an Italian lived in Italy. Immigration, again brutally or not, is a complex two-step hard bargain that succeeds only when one accepts his chosen country—and de facto rejects the collective protocols of his birthplace.
Why do these mythologies abound? Largely because Americans, the hosts, either cannot anymore even define their own civilization to would-be immigrants, or are so intimidated that they are terrified to even try.
Victor Davis Hanson is an American military historian, columnist, former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. He was a professor of classics at California State University, Fresno, and is currently the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He has been a visiting professor at Hillsdale College since 2004. Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007 by President George W. Bush. Hanson is also a farmer (growing raisin grapes on a family farm in Selma, California) and a critic of social trends related to farming and agrarianism. He is the author most recently of The Second World Wars – How the First Global Conflict was Fought and Won (Basic Books).

Monday, January 22, 2018

Jordan Peterson: ‘The pursuit of happiness is a pointless goal’

21 January 2018
Image result for jordan peterson 12 rules for life
It is uncomfortable to be told to get in touch with your inner psychopath, that life is a catastrophe and that the aim of living is not to be happy. This is hardly the staple of most self-help books. And yet, superficially at least, a self-help book containing these messages is what the Canadian psychologist Jordan B Peterson has written.
His book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos is an ambitious, some would say hubristic, attempt to explain how an individual should live their life, ethically rather than in the service of self. It is informed by the Bible, Nietzsche, Freud, Jung and Dostoevsky – again, uncommon sources for the genre.
I doubt it has the commercial appeal of The Secret (wish for something and it will come true) and it certainly strays markedly from the territory of How to Win Friends and Influence People. But then Peterson is in a different intellectual league from the authors of most such books. Camille Paglia estimates him to be “the most important Canadian thinker since Marshall McLuhan”.
Peterson, 55, is a psychology professor at the University of Toronto who shot into the headlines in 2016 after refusing to use gender-neutral pronouns at the university which new legislation, Bill C-16, compelled him legally to. Following this he was either hailed as a free-speech martyr or castigated as a transphobe. Demonstrations broke out on campus, and he has been the subject of a campaign of protest by trans activists. More controversy followed when he publicly defended James Damore, the sacked Google employee who suggested there were innate gender differences, as being no more than the scientific consensus.
He certainly doesn’t sit well with the usually left-leaning academic establishment. Apart from anything else, he believes most university humanities courses should be defunded because they have been “corrupted by neo-Marxist postmodernists” – particularly women’s studies and black studies. This has led him to be branded a member of the alt-right – although his support for socialised healthcare, redistribution of wealth towards the poorest and the decriminalisation of drugs suggests this is far from the whole story. He defines himself as a “classic British liberal”. But he also says – when challenged for being a reactionary – that “being reactionary is the new radicalism”.
Peterson has largely been in the news for his blazing, outspoken opposition to much of the far-left political agenda, which he characterises as totalitarian, intolerant and a growing threat to the primacy of the individual – which is his core value and, he asserts, the foundation of western culture.
I first came across Peterson not in any political context but as a teacher of story. His online videos contain extensive deconstructions of narratives and myths, both ancient and modern. I watched his videos on the psychological significance of biblical stories. Although I am a lifelong atheist, for the first time the Bible started to make symbolic sense to me. Peterson can take the most difficult ideas and make them entertaining. This may be why his YouTube videos have had 35m views. Even his biblical lectures have been watched 5m times – quite a figure for a theological analysis of the Old Testament. He is fast becoming the closest that academia has to a rock star.
Peterson’s worldview is complex, although 12 Rules makes a heroic attempt to simplify it into digestible material. It might be encapsulated thus: “Life is tragic. You are tiny and flawed and ignorant and weak and everything else is huge, complex and overwhelming. Once, we had Christianity as a bulwark against that terrifying reality. But God died. Since then the defence has either been ideology – most notably Marxism or fascism – or nihilism. These lead, and have led in the 20th century, to catastrophe.
“‘Happiness’ is a pointless goal. Don’t compare yourself with other people, compare yourself with who you were yesterday. No one gets away with anything, ever, so take responsibility for your own life. You conjure your own world, not only metaphorically but also literally and neurologically. These lessons are what the great stories and myths have been telling us since civilisation began.”
Peterson studied political science before shifting to psychology and became obsessed with understanding, at a time when the cold war was ongoing, how two sets of beliefs could be so deeply held it brought the whole of humanity to the brink of destruction. It has driven him ever since to reflect on human nature and the often irrational way in which we generate belief systems.
His first book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief (1999), is a profound but often impenetrable tome that, to quote his biographer, describes the “structure of systems of beliefs and myths, their role in the regulation of emotion, creation of meaning, and motivation for genocide”. It all feels a long way from his latest book, which has chapter titles such as, “Rule 1: Stand up straight with your shoulders back” and “Rule 11: Do not bother children when whey are skateboarding.” But the philosophy at the heart of it is the same.
I Skyped Peterson in Toronto before his visit to London to lecture and promote the book. In the (vain) hope of knocking him off balance, I led with: “Who the hell do you think you are? Moses?”
He simply laughed. “No, I think I’m someone who is properly terrified. I’ve thought a lot about very terrible things. And I read history as the potential perpetrator – not the victim. That takes you to some very dark places. Also, this book isn’t only written for other people. It’s a warning to me. I’m also saying: ‘Look the hell out because the chickens come home to roost.’ If I’ve learned one thing in 20 years of clinical practice, it’s that. I swear I’ve never seen anyone get away with anything in my whole life.
“Nietzsche pointed out that most morality is cowardice. There’s absolutely no doubt that that is the case. The problem with ‘nice people’ is that they’ve never been in any situation that would turn them into the monsters they’re capable of being.”
So if “nice people” get the chance to disguise their dark impulses from themselves, are they likely to indulge those impulses? “Yes. And a bit of soul-searching would allow them to determine in what manner they are currently indulging them.”
The fact of our essential darkness may, perhaps, be seen transparently in the flood of hatred, abuse and rage that is now clearly visible on anonymous Twitter feeds. It was “so-called normal people”, not sociopaths, who were responsible for the atrocities of nazism, Stalinism and Maoism. We must not forget, says Peterson, that we are corrupt and pathetic , and capable of great malevolence.
So if we are all monsters, how are we to be saved? The first thing is to understand how our worldview evolves. Crucial to this is a 20-year-old experiment on inattention – the famous Invisible Gorilla experiment. This involved recording two teams of basketball players and playing back the game to observers, who were asked to count the number of passes their team made. During the game, a man in a gorilla suit walks on to the court, pounds his chest and then walks off. More than 50% of the observers, astonishingly, did not notice the gorilla at all.
Why is this so important? Because, as Peterson notes, you only see what you aim at – not only metaphorically but also literally and physiologically. Your perception is adjusted to your aims. So if your aims are dark and corrupted, you will see the dark and corrupt things that facilitate your aims. And if your aims are high, you will see different things. Belief colours perception. This fits in with his claim that you must pursue proper meaning rather than happiness.
“It’s all very well to think the meaning of life is happiness, but what happens when you’re unhappy? Happiness is a great side effect. When it comes, accept it gratefully. But it’s fleeting and unpredictable. It’s not something to aim at – because it’s not an aim. And if happiness is the purpose of life, what happens when you’re unhappy? Then you’re a failure. And perhaps a suicidal failure. Happiness is like cotton candy. It’s just not going to do the job.”
But how do we build meaning? By putting it before expediency. Which is quite close to simply “acting right”. Peterson believes that everyone is born with an instinct for ethics and meaning. It is also a matter of responsibility – you need to have the courage to voluntarily shoulder the great burden of being in order to move towards that meaning. This is what the biblical stories tell us. The great world stories have a moral purpose – they teach us how to pursue meaning over narrow self-interest. Whether it’s Pinocchio, The Lion King, Harry Potter or the Bible, they are all saying the same thing – take the highest path, pick up the heaviest rock and you will have the hope of being psychologically reborn despite the inevitable suffering that life brings.
Peterson’s biggest analysis of story has been the Bible. He lays out how the Adam and Eve myth shows the coming of self-consciousness – and therefore an awareness of mortality, vulnerability, the future, and good and evil. Everyone in the story immediately starts to lie and dodge the blame – Adam blames Eve, Eve blames the serpent. Then they give birth to Cain and Abel, and the first act of human history is for Cain to murder his own brother out of resentment against him and God alike, and then lie about it: “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
Peterson talks a lot about the power of resentment in his writings. We hate those who are better than us (God, Abel) and want to destroy them, then lie to hide from the consequences. “Consult your resentment,” he says. “It is revelatory. Don’t underestimate malevolence and don’t underestimate the utility of your capacity for malevolence. If you’re weak, you should turn yourself into a monster. It’s a funny thing, that ‘monster’ is better than ‘nice’. But it’s not as good as ‘not monstrous’. And that’s the next thing to achieve. But cowering in your basement resenting everyone is the real pathway to darkness.
“You have to notice when you’re feeling homicidal. Let’s say you go to work and someone bullies you. If you notice, you’re fantasising some pretty nasty stuff. That tells you two things. The first is that you’re not as nice as you think. And the corollary of that is, you’re not as useless as you think.”
“God”, in Peterson’s formulation, stands in for “reality” or “the future” or “the logos” or “being” or “everything that isn’t you and that you don’t know”. And the principal discovery of early mankind is that “God” can be bargained with, through sacrifice – which is no more than saying if you sacrifice the pleasures of the present, reality is likely to reward you in the future. It’s not guaranteed, but it’s the best option you’ve got.
Having said that, and noting that his lectures are purely about the psychological rather than the theological value of the Bible, Peterson is a devout Christian. “Yes. Which is a form of insanity. The ethical burden is ridiculous. God might swipe you down even though you’re doing the right thing. But it’s your best bet. There is a great level of reality out there which we don’t know and don’t understand. We can bargain with it, but it doesn’t guarantee you anything and God can turn on you. That is the thing about life. There’s no guarantee of success.”
Does he believe in life after death? “I don’t know that I even believe in death! I’m not sure we understand anything about the role of consciousness in space and time. I don’t think the world is the way we think it is. I’m not a materialist. Whatever is going on down there at the subatomic level of matter is so weird that the people who understand it don’t understand it.”
The last chapter of Peterson’s book, misleadingly titled “Rule 12: Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street”, goes into the personal struggles he went through when it was discovered that his daughter, Mikhaila, had a rare bone disease. For many years, Peterson, his wife and daughter fought the illness, which clearly caused Mikhaila terrible suffering. It is also on record that Peterson and his daughter have suffered clinical depression. It is impossible to be sure, but it seems clear that the agony of these experiences has had a major impact on him and how he comes to focus on the underlying darkness of life.
There is much more to be said about Jordan B Peterson. He is a strange mixture of theologian, psychologist, conservative, liberal, wit and lay preacher. He’s a powerful advocate of the scientific method who is not a materialist. He can go from cuddly to razor sharp in a beat. His primary concern, however, which underpins nearly everything about him, is the defence of the individual against groupthink, whether on the right or the left.
“Your group identity is not your cardinal feature. That’s the great discovery of the west. That’s why the west is right. And I mean that unconditionally. The west is the only place in the world that has ever figured out that the individual is sovereign. And that’s an impossible thing to figure out. It’s amazing that we managed it. And it’s the key to everything that we’ve ever done right.”

Peterson’s 12 rules


Rule 1 Stand up straight with your shoulders back
Rule 2 Treat yourself like you would someone you are responsible for helping
Rule 3 Make friends with people who want the best for you
Rule 4 Compare yourself with who you were yesterday, not with who someone else is today
Rule 5 Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them
Rule 6 Set your house in perfect order before you criticise the world
Rule 7 Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)
Rule 8 Tell the truth – or, at least, don’t lie
Rule 9 Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t
Rule 10 Be precise in your speech
Rule 11 Do not bother children when they are skate-boarding
Rule 12 Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street
12 Rules For Life by Jordan B Peterson is published by Allen Lane (£20). Buy it for £17 from bookshop.theguardian.com

Sunday, January 21, 2018

Film Review: ‘Hostiles’ Grapples With the Contradictions of the Western

By A.O. Scott
https://www.nytimes.com/
December 21, 2017
Image result for hostiles
“Hostiles” opens with a well-traveled observation from D.H. Lawrence about how the “essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic and a killer.” It ends with a shot that complicates that idea by revisiting and in effect reversing a famous image from an earlier western: The last moment of “The Searchers,” when John Wayne lingers outside the door, symbolically barred from entering the civilized society he has saved.
In between the explicitly cited Lawrence and the implicitly footnoted Wayne, the action winds from New Mexico to Montana and the modern movie audience is led on a tour of a familiar mythic landscape. Our guide, Scott Cooper, who adapted an unpublished manuscript by the screenwriterDonald E. Stewart into this handsome oater, has updated the talking points to take account of changed sensibilities. The result may not quite be a masterpiece, but it is nonetheless a credible master’s thesis, a careful and well-informed exploration of the paradoxes that are as integral to the western genre as horses, whiskey and guns. There are plenty of those things, of course, but there is also a conscientious attempt to reckon with the legacy of plunder and racism that flickers behind the legends.
Richard Slotkin, at the conclusion of his magisterial three-volume study of the West in the American imagination, notes that the western, appearances to the contrary, doesn’t have a fixed ideological meaning. We can use the mythology of the frontier, he writes, “to reify our nostalgia for a falsely idealized past,” or we can use it as a way of “imagining and speaking truth.” “Hostiles” sets out to do both. It aims for epic grandeur, ethical clarity and also a measure of historical credibility. This puts the movie in a state of contradiction with itself, like nearly every other good western and, for that matter, like the United States of America.
It’s 1892, and the Indian Wars are winding down. Capt. Joseph Blocker (Christian Bale), a walking embodiment of Lawrence’s archetype, has made a career of genocidal slaughter, which has left him bitter but not remorseful. Blocker is no brute: He reads Julius Caesar in the original Latin. And he hates Indians with a righteous purity that is shocking to contemplate now but was hardly abnormal in those days.
To the extent that Blocker has been a soldier doing his job, the movie regards him with sympathy, and supplies an Eastern intellectual (Bill Camp, wearing round spectacles) to sneer and judge. In general, those few white people who speak up in the movie against white brutality are viewed with contempt, even as the agents of that brutality are offered a chance at redemption. The moral economy of “Hostiles” dictates that only those who have made war can participate in the regenerative violence that leads toward peace.
Continue reading the main story
Before he can collect his pension, Blocker is given what for him is a supremely distasteful mission. He must escort one of his old enemies, a dying Cheyenne chief named Yellow Hawk, to his ancestral lands up north. Blocker holds Yellow Hawk (Wes Studi) personally responsible for the deaths of his friends and regards the government’s decision to set him free after years in captivity to be an intolerable betrayal. But duty is duty, and he gathers up a posse of fine character actors (including Jesse Plemons, Jonathan Majors, Timothée Chalamet and an especially good Rory Cochrane) to accompany the chief and his family (Q’orianka Kilcher, Adam Beach, Xavier Horsechief and Tanaya Beatty).
They are soon joined by Rosalee Quaid (Rosamund Pike), whose family has been slaughtered by Comanches. Her presence allows Blocker to show his compassionate side and alters the relations between the Cheyenne and the soldiers. The existence of a common enemy — those Comanches, whose aggression offends both Blocker and Yellow Hawk — creates a cautious, tactical alliance that foreshadows a more comprehensive settling of differences.
The marauding Comanches are not the only villains. “Hostiles” is committed to evenhandedness and so introduces some bad white men into the mix. These include a rapacious band of fur trappers and a disgraced soldier (Ben Foster), who faces hanging as punishment for his indiscriminate killing of natives. As he points out, what he is condemned for having done is no different from what Blocker has spent his career doing. Only times and government policies have changed.
“Hostiles,” for all its earnest maneuvering to stay both true to history and on the right side of it, nonetheless sits a bit uncomfortably in the present. It is unlikely to escape notice that this is yet another tale of a white man’s conscience, which uses Yellow Hawk and his children and grandchildren as vehicles for Blocker’s awakening. Whether this awakening is complete and whether the film’s final notes of absolution are fully earned are matters worth arguing about.
And “worth arguing about” is not a bad verdict. “Hostiles” is elegantly made, with picturesque cinematography by Masanobu Takayanagi and a muscular, old-style score by Max Richter. Mr. Cooper has regained his confidence after the mess of “Black Mass.” The performances are appropriately stoical, and Mr. Bale, Ms. Pike and Mr. Studi share the ability to evoke people from an earlier time without dimming their movie-star charisma.
“Hostiles” itself wants to be both a throwback and an advance, not so much a new kind of western as every possible kind — vintage, revisionist, elegiac, feminist. What makes the movie interesting is the sincerity and intelligence with which it pursues that ambition, heroically unaware that the mission is doomed from the start.