I read 12 Rules for Life

 …and I didn’t completely hate it. Until I did.

Each year, I try to read a book which has been widely discussed as being terrible, so as to have an independent opinion on it. This year’s selection was Dr Jordan B Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life, subtitled ‘An Antidote to Chaos.’

In the introduction, sorry, “overture,” 🙄 he explains how the book grew out of Quora contributions. This makes perfect sense. There’s nothing particularly wrong with the “rules” as they exist in chapter headings. It would probably have made a pretty good long-form listicle but instead, he had a book deal and 400 pages to fill. This means that in describing, explaining and justifying each “rule,” he goes off on bizarre tangents which can end up turning what started out as reasonable suggestions into very, very bad advice.

As mentioned, I did not hate this book straight away. Up until about half way through, I was willing to give Dr Peterson the benefit of the doubt that like, say, Morrissey or Glenn Greenwald, he had started out reasonable (if challenging) and then become so addicted to his own iconoclasm as to lose all perspective.

Yeah, nah.

Dr Peterson’s rambling justifications for his rules boil down into three categories: psychological, evolutionary, and Biblical. In fact, as a psychologist, he makes a fascinating Biblical scholar. I say that in all sincerity. It’s in his interpretation of evolution that he really starts to come a cropper. He dances dangerously close to eugenics but despite this, maintains deep sympathy for men who find themselves at the unfortunate end of natural selection. It’s easy to see why he is the intellectual of choice for young men who want to blame women for denying them sexual gratification.

So let’s address the misogyny directly. It’s clear that Dr Peterson is deeply enamoured of what some might call “traditional values,” particularly when it comes to gender roles, and defines “chaos” as anything which doesn’t conform to these narrow definitions. As such, he delves deep into the animal world for examples of gender inequality. These examples are undeniable of course, except for the fact that humans, while also products of evolution, are not animals. We have evolved to a point where animal behaviour like eating one’s own vomit, procreating in public, and infanticide are now frowned upon. I’m sure Dr Peterson would not advocate for any of those things. We have also reached a point where we can control our own development, meaning if anyone should wish to do a job traditionally delegated to the other gender, they can, and why shouldn’t they?

This is a book written by a man, about men, for men. In Dr Peterson’s view, it’s man’s world. Women just live in it and men tragically have to live with them. At one point he denies the patriarchy exists because a man invented tampons. In the next chapter he says the patriarchy absolutely exists and that’s just the natural order of things.

And this is the point where he falls into the perennial trap of using his qualification to justify what are little more than feelpinions. In defining order as masculine and chaos as feminine, he makes the assumption that his experiences are more valid than anyone else’s for no other reason than that he has experienced them or indeed, is capable of experiencing it. It’s as ridiculous as a woman saying a knee to the groin doesn’t really hurt on the grounds that she doesn’t find it too painful so the rest must all be male drama. There is a good reason no woman has ever said this.

Throughout the book, Peterson reiterates what a big fan he is of Freud. It’s ironic that not since Freud has anyone inadvertently revealed so much about himself while professing to speak about others.

It’s not to say that there aren’t nuggets of wisdom in here. To set your house in perfect order before you criticise the world is undoubtedly good advice. I look forward to a time when Dr Peterson takes it.
   
 

Review: The Case for Courage

Alright, I know Kevin Rudd is problematic. He’s the policy wonk who got ideas above his station in a way that even ending a decade of regressive Liberal government wasn’t enough to make up for. He was torn down by his supporters and then, as if to justify their action, did everything he could to destroy those who tore him down, even if it meant destroying his legacy at the same time.

We can only wonder how much better off we would be if Rudd had been the policy brains behind Julia Gillard’s political nous, but here we are. As he points out in this pamphlet though, first you have to win elections, and the fact remains Rudd is the only Labor leader to ever win a majority in the last quarter century. At some point, we have to face up to that fact and the reasons behind it.

So yes, Rudd is problematic but for all that, everyone should read this. It is effectively an alternative manifesto for the ALP and it’s one they should take very seriously. It contains many ideas both rusted-on Labor-right and the progressive left will find, well, courageous, but it’s hard to fault any of them. In fact, if Paul Keating had written this very document – as he well could have – all the Gen X Labor fanbois would be all over it, and rightly so.

There are plenty of potential Gotcha! moments. He calls out the bully boy tactics of the Murdoch media and proposes standing up to them in a way he completely neglected to do when in government. He returns to a pragmatically compassionate refugee intake – the one he threw out the window in 2013 for a chance at leading Labor to a third term. There is also no small amount of score-settling and told-you-so moments, from the early stimulus of the GFC to the NBN, and the truth is, he’s perfectly justified in doing so.

The contradictions are there for all to see but I encourage you to look beyond the chance to shout Aha! and judge the policies and tactics on their merits. Although it’s personal, not official, this is the most mature and forward-thinking policy document I’ve read since, well, since Kevin07.

I read the Mueller Report

When Robert Mueller was called to testify before a US Congressional panel in July, three months after his report was delivered, it went something like this:

Q: We haven’t read the whole report; can you summarise the juicy bits for us?
A: No. Read the report.

Well, I did. To the extent that it’s been released, I read every last meticulous footnote. It was a slog, which is why it took me so long, so I would be very suspicious of anyone who claimed to have digested it in a weekend as many did.

By now, I would have thought all this would be a bit dated but now the president and his attorney general, who both claimed the report exonerated Trump the week it came out, are now preparing an inquiry into the inquiry because that’s what grownups do.

For those who are interested, here’s my tl;dr version:

The report is split into two chapters, one on the subject of collusion and the second on the subject of obstruction.

That there was interference in the 2016 presidential election by Russian interests is never in question. Nor is it ever in question that there was contact between some of these Russian interests and the Trump campaign. However, the report returns an open finding as to whether there was direct collusion with foreign meddlers by the Trump campaign. It isn’t established beyond reasonable doubt that senior members of the Trump campaign willingly colluded with Russia, as opposed to simply being used as useful idiots. It also fails to show that candidate Trump himself had any direct knowledge of the cooperation at the time.

To quote a line from The Godfather Part II, the family has a lot of buffers.

On obstruction of justice, the inquiry has Trump, his campaign and his administration bang to rights. There is ample proof and the defence submitted by Trump’s counsel is thoroughly rebutted. The only reason it hasn’t gone further is because Mueller chose not to test the constitutional grey area of whether a sitting president can be indicted. It doesn’t mean Trump can’t be arrested at 12:01pm on January 20th.

It is perhaps for this reason, and to distract from impeachment investigations on another charge that has arisen since the report was published, that the Trump administration is looking to launch a counter-inquiry. However, if they are successful in their attempt to discredit the Mueller investigation, it would also negate over 20 criminal prosecutions which have arisen from it, seven of which have already resulted in convictions or guilty pleas.
  
 

I read Mein Kampf

(and maybe you should too)

A few explanations first…

I read Hitler’s memoir/manifesto so as to have an informed opinion. There are plenty of quotes attributed to this book and I wanted to know which were accurate. And I wanted to know how Nazis defined themselves at the time, as opposed to how historians define them (not that I question the accuracy of those definitions) or how present day pseudo-fascists perceive the doctrine. I wanted to know to what extent it is a ravings of a madman, to what extent true intentions were covered up, and how a nation could have been taken in by such a doctrine.

Put more simply: Know your enemy.

I took great care in sourcing a copy. There was no way I was going to purchase a copy in any way, shape or form. Since coming into public domain, the book has been made available to buy and I am given to understand that proceeds from sales are donated to charity, although some charities have refused to take such donations. I’ll have more to say about whether the book should be available at all later. In any case, I was not going to have my name, payment details or any digital profile associated with such a purchase.

I used a TOR browser and private search engine to find a free electronic copy. In doing so, I discovered that there is some controversy among neo-Nazi circles about the accuracy of translations and certain edits of the book. Apparently there are certain “unedited” manuscripts which are alleged to contain Hitler’s “true” feelings because certain official versions were cleaned up. I sense bullshit there, and who cares anyway? I settled on a version which had been sanctioned by the Nazi party in the 1940s with the intention of distribution in an occupied Britain. This electronic copy was clearly scanned from a print copy, which explains the errors in the screenshot. I will not covert quotes to text.

There has been chatter in recent months about whether Hitler was left wing or right wing. It is an irrelevant question. George Orwell described himself as both a patriot and as a socialist but would recognise neither term as they are commonly used today. Yes, Hitler called the party “National Socialists” and he certainly held economic theories which might be described as socialist, but on the whole, the Nazi party was socialist in the same way that North Korea is a “Democratic Republic.” Hitler saved his most vehement (although non-specific) criticism for Marxism, which he considered to be a part of the great Jewish conspiracy.

The fact is there are passages of Mein Kampf that could plausibly be attributed to any post-war political thinker from Margaret Thatcher to Michael Moore. Trying to describe Nazism in modern terms of left and right is a fool’s errand which helps no-one.

Having grown up in a household where war documentaries were a common thing, it was regularly pointed out that when film of Hitler’s speeches are shown, there are never any translations and sometimes his voice is distorted too. Having read his book, I can now see why. He is seductive. There were moments in the first volume where I actually found myself nodding in agreement with certain passages only to be taken aback when I turned the page and was reminded that I was reading the words of one of history’s most evil men when he blamed it all on “the Jew.”

In last year’s rage read, Atlas Shrugged, it’s obvious in every paragraph that it was written by a sociopath. Mein Kampf has moments that are surprisingly, disturbingly reasonable in amongst the bizarre asides on Aryan supremacy.

This is the biggest problem with selective quotes from this book. While Hitler is rightly seen as the embodiment of all evil, it does not mean that all his views or policies are equally evil. This opens the door for people with modern political motives to make the spurious assertion that (for example) nationalisation of industry will lead to mass genocide.

General themes:

• Parliamentary representatives are cowards because their collective responsibility also gives them the option to deny responsibility. Better to have a single leader who Providence shall identify and who will be responsible to the angry masses if they fail.
• Oratory is greater than writing.
• Marxism is evil.
• So is social democracy.
• The masses are mostly stupid.
• Economic dominance is no substitute for military power and expansionism.
• It is right to forcibly expand territories to feed a growing population.
• Germany only lost World War I because of traitors and a defeatist press.
• Propaganda needs to consist of short, simple slogans repeated endlessly. (sound familiar?)
• The press want to undermine the state and therefore must be controlled by the state.
• All the press is controlled by the Jews.
• Marriage is for procreation and the strengthening of the race and the state.
• Modern art is rubbish.
• So is modern architecture.
• Aryans invented everything.
• Subjugation of ‘inferior’ races is mutually beneficial.
• Racial impurity is the cause of all downfall.
• Might makes right.

There is no pandering to any point of view. There is absolutely no doubt Hitler believes everything he says here. He actually makes a partially reasonable case for dictatorship, reminding us of that great conservative saying that representative democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. His unashamed belief in racial supremacy and outright dictatorship are both shocking and, in a way, almost refreshing in an age where we are used to certain sectors making sly hints towards these views. If nothing else, Hitler was honest about it.

The words “master race” are never used but Hitler’s obsession with racial purity and paranoid belief that Jews control all aspects of finance, the media and (somehow) Marxism dominate every topic. In fact, his assertions on eugenics border on the comical but it’s important to think before you laugh. As patently absurd as much of this doctrine is, we must remember it eventually seduced a nation which went on to conquer most of a continent, murder 6 million people, and it took a world war to stop them.

This brings me back to why I wanted to read this book and whether it should be available. Mein Kampf is undoubtedly an extremely dangerous book. I do not believe it should be banned. I believe that to guard against racist nationalist dictatorship ever rising again, we need to know and recognise the doctrine in their own words as well the interpretation of historians. The subtitle of this essay is in no way a recommendation or an endorsement. I don’t think people should read this book out of idle curiosity. As tedious as the writing is, it has the power to seduce the weak minded or those who don’t read it in the context of what it led to. It should however be considered by anyone who wants to recognise Nazism in its own words and identify anything similar.



  
PS: I am open to suggestions for a rage-read in 2019 but please make it something shorter.  

I read Atlas Shrugged (and now you don’t have to)

I read Atlas Shrugged because it has had a significant influence on political thought in the 60 years since its publication, and I wanted to have an informed opinion on it. I’ll declare that I have little time or respect for the politics of those who cite Ayn Rand as an influence but for all I knew, it might just have been a good story that was hijacked or misinterpreted.

It’s not.

First, the good parts:
In its own way, Atlas Shrugged is an early feminist novel. The lead character is a woman who runs a highly successful national company, yet the fact she is a woman in such a position is hardly ever mentioned. Furthermore, she’s not ashamed of her sexuality or of using it to get what she wants. This was challenging stuff in the 1950s.

Also, the fact that Rand exalts the creators and producers above the mere paper-pushers is refreshing. It’s unfortunate that it quickly crosses the line between admiration and fetish.

The important thing to know about Atlas Shrugged is that it is not fiction, it’s fantasy. There is an important distinction. Regular fiction still takes place in the world as we know it, where the laws of physics, economics and human nature still apply. Atlas Shrugged does not take place in this world.

In order for her premise to make sense, Rand has created a world populated only by geniuses and idiots. Yet somehow, the idiots have managed to enslave the geniuses. Meanwhile, the geniuses all magically turn out to be of the same worldview and can easily find each other to have sex together. Importantly though, they can only enjoy the sex if they know for certain that their partner is doing it only for their own pleasure. Rand had a weird sub/dom thing going on.

And it is boring as batshit.

The book could be one third as long and still say everything it wants to say. The other 600 pages are padded out with interminable soliloquies that bash the reader over the head with Rand’s philosophy, and that’s not even counting the notorious Galt speech. It’s been suggested that this is how Rand chose to tell the story. I can only believe this if people are saying she made a conscious decision to write badly.

It could be considered innovative to present a socio-economic manifesto in the form of a novel – for that is essentially what Atlas Shrugged is – but the problem is that the author gets to write the counter argument as well. Rand is either in love with her characters or despises them, and it shows in the dialogue she gives them. She stops just barely short of labelling them “good guy” and “bad guy.” While some of the lead characters make it to a second dimension, the antagonists’ dialogue makes even a 60s-era Batman villain sound deep by comparison.

Take this line for example:

“Scientists know better than to believe in reason.”

To put such a statement in the mouth of a character who is supposed to be one of the nation’s top scientists, without any hint of irony or satire proves either,
a)    this novel takes place in some Bizarro World where ‘science’ and ‘reason’ mean whatever the author wants them to mean, or
b)    Rand doesn’t know what she’s talking about.
Take your pick.

I have tried not to psychoanalyse the author, partly because many others already have, and partly because it’s tangential to the quality of the book. Still, it’s unavoidable in discussing the book as a whole. It’s clear that Rand does not believe her version of social Darwinism to be amoral. The piece of good left in her, Darth Vader-like, is that she recognises morality as a real thing which is to be aspired to and admired. So she attempts to flip the definition of morality – charity is evil; selfishness is a virtue; wealth is a measure of virtue.

She also addresses the problem mentioned earlier about fantasy versus fiction, stating on the about-the-author page:

“I trust that no one will tell me that men such as I write about don’t exist. That this book has been written – and published – is my proof that they do.”

Seriously? Tolkien could have used to same logic to argue that hobbits are real.
If this is the standard of proof considered acceptable by her acolytes, it explains a lot.

At best, Atlas Shrugged is simply the longest and most boring straw man argument in history. At worst, it may have caused the global financial crisis of the late 00s.

Don’t believe me? Consider this: Alan Greenspan was chairman of the US Federal Reserve for nearly 20 years and he exerted a huge influence on financial systems in the late 20th century. He was also a Rand groupie who read the first drafts of Atlas Shrugged, and a champion of the laissez faire capitalism the book promotes. When asked what went wrong, he had to admit that he had never considered that people would behave so irrationally – which brings us back to the laws of human nature. I would like to ask if he has ever met people. Better still, I would like to put to him the question that John Galt puts to the country in his radio speech:

 

While fetishising industry and commerce, the speech also contains a passage that inadvertently contradicts Rand and her fans’ love affair with the rugged individual:

In other words, you didn’t build that.

I am not going to give Atlas Shrugged a one-star review, not because it deserves better but because every 1-star and 5-star review will understandably be assumed to have a political motive. The only way anyone could possibly regard this book as good writing is to be predisposed to Rand’s philosophy. Even if I were sympathetic to her worldview, I would be embarrassed that this is the best argument ever put for it. Having approached the book with an open mind, I can objectively advise that whatever commentaries you may have read tell you as much as you need to know.

Whatever damage has been done by those whose confirmation bias led them to believe that Atlas Shrugged has any basis in reality, Rand is correct in this one exchange on page 327:

Indeed they do!