It is certainly possible that Canadians are bored already by the endless saga of one contentious and “controversial” psychologist’s battle with the college that “regulates” his profession. But on the off chance you are still interested — as you should be, perhaps, if you are a member of such a profession, as is the case with one fifth of Canadians, or are or will be served by one (everyone else) — here is the latest.
My lawyers and I received not one but five (!) additional complaints last week — part of the endless litany of whining manipulative missives issued by the growing army of behind-the-scenes informer-rats who make it part of their life’s mission to hassle, annoy and prosecute, not even so much because of their ideological convictions, which are inevitably shallow and ill-thought-through, but because of the sadistic delight that accompanies the ability to harness themselves to the faceless and resentful because of it mid-level bureaucrats who increasingly rule our fair land.
What was my crime this time? Yet another tweet, with clear political intent, criticizing none other than Kamala Harris, who now has a chance to become the most powerful person in the world, despite doing nothing whatsoever to earn that opportunity. You might ask yourself, as well: what are the chances of five separate complaints, bearing on the same tweet, being submitted simultaneously, without some behind-the-scenes organizing by the very activists who are weaponizing the professional governing boards? Figure that out for yourselves. You can, and easily — despite the fact that apparently they cannot or more accurately will not see what is right in front of their faces.
Have you ever listened to Harris? If not, I would recommend doing so, painful as it might be, just so you know. For reasons unknown, she talks down to her audiences in a manner that anyone over four with any sense and anyone under with any self-respect would find, to say the least, grating — not to mention demeaning, presumptuous, disrespectful, haughty and Machiavellian. Here is the damning tweet in question:
I'll hazard a guess: retarded children. And they got that way from listening to people like her. A devouring mother, if there ever was one. https://t.co/l2rdCwEyDY
— Dr Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) February 1, 2023
All five complainants claim, so wonderfully and compassionately, to be objecting only to my use of the word “retarded” — all, independently (of course), even though one says outright “I know I am not the only one who is imploring the CPBAO to take further action to stem this ridicule and disrespect to the industry, the people, and the unwritten rules of respectful representation of a profession.”
Why in truth are such individuals “concerned”? Because the language police types who increasingly and increasingly demandingly want, first, to appear as though they are good and that they care, without any cost to themselves and, second, to control absolutely everything everyone else says all the time. And the first reason is just an excuse for the second, and the second is nothing but a manifestation of their unlimited desire for power. If you cannot or will not see that you are a naïve or a blind fool or both. Apparently such an attitude now qualifies you to sit on the College board in question.
Apparently, I can’t say “retarded” and do not even know what to say otherwise any more when talking about children who are slow to learn, which is of course what “retarded” means, because the language police have made everything all eggshells in such situations and purposefully so. I knew perfectly well when I wrote that tweet that I would rub up the wrong way against exactly the sort of people who would threaten my livelihood and the equally power-mad invisible cowardly bureaucrats who enable them — as the members of the college have, yet again. This in spite of the fact that they have a responsibility to know better, as professionals who should understand Cluster B, psychopathic, narcissistic, Machiavellian behaviour and who should be protecting their members and the public from such people.
The College of Psychologists and Behavioural Analysts or whatever they call themselves now (such a convenient time for an identity transformation) have the right to dismiss all such complaints as vexatious, frivolous and manipulative which is exactly and precisely what they are but refuse out of spite or incompetence or some toxic combination of both to do so. Thus my overt prosecution, and the lesson it holds for other professionals, continues.
Let us do some numbers, shall we, just to understand the situation better? There have been perhaps a dozen of such complaints levied against me. Let us call that ten, just to keep the math simple. How many people have listened to my words? At least a billion, if you count each view or listen as a person. That’s one complaint for each hundred million listeners. Canada itself has a population of only forty million. That means I had to speak to twice as many people as inhabit our entire once-fair country before a single person complained. What could you possibly say that would not inflame the imagination of one person in a hundred million? In any case, here is the blunt fact of the matter: 99.999999+ per cent of people believe that what I am saying is both true and worth listening to. 0.000001 per cent disagree. Nonetheless, the College sees fit to pursue the complaints of the minority. Why?
Another question, for the behind-the-scenes censors and bureaucrats of my governing board: you are apparently hell-bent on “investigating” every complaint levied against an active member of my profession. How many complaints about your own conduct did you receive, submitted in exactly the same manner they were levied against me, in the aftermath of the publicity related to my case? Will you release those numbers? How many of those did you investigate? I suspect it was at least hundreds. Perhaps it was thousands — at least before you switched your identity. Did you follow up those complaints, with regard to your own behaviour? If not, how exactly was the decision made to exempt yourselves from your own rules? Perhaps I am ill-informed: so let everyone know the numbers, then. Describe the process of decision. The case will be clear, and not in my favour. I asked you to provide me this information, in writing, some months ago, but that request was of course deemed not worthy of attention.
Another question: have you found someone, yet, who deigns to “re-educate” me? If you have, I have not been informed of it, despite repeated requests. I am ready as requested, since I have exhausted all legal routes.
Finally, with regard to Kamala Harris: I said something else, that those who regard themselves as my enemies and their enablers at the College objected to: that it seemed likely that those in her audience whom she was addressing in the manner properly reserved for retarded children were perhaps rendered that way by listening to her very words. What did I mean by that, pray tell?
I have watched the devouring mother types — so Gingerbread house to starving children on the outside, so will eat them in a flash on the inside — well-represented by Harris habitually speak down to people, their own children included. What is the inevitable clinical consequence for said children and, my implication, for people, in general, in thrall to their politicians? They are generally rendered weak and dependent. They become much less intellectually rigorous and much more timorous than they would have been had they been spoken to as if they were individuals of merit and possibility. That is precisely the point of such demeaning and infantilizing behaviour, which is easy for the naïve to confuse with genuine caring, which it is most decidedly not. Has the Harris/Biden pathological leftist Democrat/socialist crowd done the same to the general population? In my opinion, and professional opinion at that — yes. Resoundingly yes. And it continues.
Why should anyone care about any of this? Because our language is increasingly policed. Because the rules associated with that policing are increasingly unclear, and we break them, stated and unstated, at our increasing peril. Now we are literally at the point where if a professional (that would be me) dares to point out bluntly that a stunningly manipulative politician is being both demeaning and pretentious the professional body that governs the conduct of psychologists in Ontario can begin exactly the kind of lawfare action that has frozen the tongue of virtually every professional in Canada. I can count the exceptions on the finger of one hand. And what has happened to the professionals is coming for you, dear citizens of this now ever-so-nice land.
“Maybe you should not be so mean, Dr. Peterson: you are just picking on the marginalized and powerlessness. They only want to be treated with respect.”
That is all a lie. All these good-thinkers use their demented and careless compassion to mask their desire for unlimited power, not least over speech and thought. They do that in precisely the manner that the Machievellian and psychopathic always have. Now they are aided and abetted not only by the professional colleges in Canada, but by the craven and captured Supreme Court itself.
Civilization ends when the envious, bitter and power-hungry gain the upper hand — which they have forever done by claiming victimization. That is how they cover their drive to usurp, control and outright steal with the façade of care and concern. Psychologists — real psychologists, of which there now appear to be very few — are trained to see this, even though it is difficult and shocking, and they have a duty to report on it, when they see it. I see it. I am reporting on it — and the consequence of that is that exactly the people at whom I am pointing are targeting me, and in an organized fashion. Worse — unforgivably worse — my professional body, which is apparently either composed of the same sort of people or at least of those too blind to see, is enabling them.
Five more complaints, all nuisance, none the least bit associated with my clinical conduct. Four brought forward to my attention without objection by the cowards at the college.
The charade continues. The Alberta government has noticed, and made some moves to limit the arbitrary power of the governing bodies in question. That is something positive. The rest of Canada, including the Ontario Conservatives who should know better — and who think, to a not insignificant degree, the same way I do — continue with their silence, hoping… hoping for what? That the prosecution by the radical activists will end with me? This is a very dangerous presumption indeed.
Free speech, free thought, freedom of conscience, freedom of association: these do not die suddenly, anywhere they have taken fragile root, with a cataclysmic and dramatic bang, obvious enough to call the requisite rescuing heroes into being. They die, instead, in a series of pathetic defeats, none of which appear to be worth risking reputation to prevent. We are watching them die in front of our eyes. Everyone who is not asleep knows it.
We are becoming precisely the retarded children who can — and will — be talked down to, and who will take it and like it. I am pointing this out. Am I exaggerating, or blowing my own horn, or paranoid? Ask yourself this: are you still comfortable saying what you think in this land, glorious and free — even as comfortable as you were a mere decade ago? And if the answer is “no,” then ask yourself this: under such degenerating conditions, how long will you still be able to truly think? And what inevitably happens to those who cannot or will not think? And what happens to their children — and their societies?
Hell has forever been that infernal place where the informers have the upper hand.
Más info en https://ift.tt/695mla3 / Tfno. & WA 607725547 Centro MENADEL (Frasco Martín) Psicología Clínica y Tradicional en Mijas. #Menadel #Psicología #Clínica #Tradicional #MijasPueblo
*No suscribimos necesariamente las opiniones o artículos aquí compartidos. No todo es lo que parece.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario