Connect with us

International

Jordan Peterson: ‘I would vote for Trump’ as part of ‘revolutionary’ coalition with Elon Musk, RFK Jr.

Published

7 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Patrick Delaney

In an interview with Piers Morgan, the Canadian psychologist contrasted the former president’s past performance, achieving a ‘decent’ economy and ‘no war,’ against the Biden-Harris record of a ‘complete, bloody world-ending disaster’ in foreign policy.

If he was an American citizen, Dr. Jordan Peterson said he would vote for President Donald Trump in November due to his past performance in office, the “hyper-powerful people” he has gathered around him, and the “grace under pressure” he has exhibited even within the context of two assassination attempts.

The best-selling Canadian author and clinical psychologist was speaking to British TV host Piers Morgan in a wide-ranging interview last Thursday.

“If I could vote in the American election, I would vote for Trump,” he said. “I don’t trust (VP Kamala) Harris.”

“The best predictor of someone’s future behavior is their past behavior,” Peterson explained. “If you’re trying to hire someone and you have documented history of their efforts in precisely the domain that you’re attempting to hire for, and the evidence is clear and valid, you use that in favor of all other predictive markers.”

And with Trump, “we have a documented track record” that includes “decent economic performance” for the nation during his previous term and a “markedly stable international situation” that included “no wars.”

In contrast, the public philosopher observed that under the Biden-Harris administration “we have this terrible, brutal, and I think unnecessary war going on between Russia and Ukraine, which could spiral out of control at any moment, and is highly likely to.”

Since at least May 2023, Trump has promised to end the war in Ukraine within “24 hours” of his potential second inauguration in January. And despite his apparent full embrace of the Zionist agenda, the former president has provided several indications that if elected in November he may bring an end to the genocidal onslaught Israel is currently inflicting upon the Palestinian people.

In late April, the presumed Republican nominee also would not rule out withholding U.S. military aid from Israel in an interview with Time Magazine. After criticizing their “public relations,” particularly the Israeli Army “sending out pictures every night of buildings falling down and being bombed with possibly people (inside),” he was asked whether he would rule out withholding aid, to which he said, “No.”

Additionally, in early June, President Trump appeared to inadvertently make a significant campaign commitment in telling former UFC lightweight champion Khabib Nurmagomedov he would end the war in Palestine.

While attending an Ultimate Fighting Championship event in Newark, New Jersey, Nurmagomedov was heard privately saying to Trump, “I know you will stop the war in Palestine,” to which the 45th president responded, “We will stop it. I will stop the war,” with a video clip of the encounter going viral on Twitter/X.

Secondly, Peterson highlighted what he saw as a very positive development with the former president pulling in “a lot of hyper-powerful people” such as business mogul Elon Musk, former Democrat congresswoman and presidential candidate Tulsi GabbardVivek Ramaswamy, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., “most of whom would have been Democrats in anything approximating a sane and normal world.”

For the psychologist, this indicates that the otherwise “flamboyant and dominating” Trump does not “tilt too far in the narcissistic direction” otherwise he would not be making these alliances and sharing “the spotlight with the rest of this crew.”

Furthermore, “I would vote for Trump if for no other reason than Musk himself has already agreed to head something like a Department of Governmental Efficiency in the U.S.,” Peterson continued. “Then Kennedy is bringing the public health crisis into the political realm, and both of those two things are revolutionary.”

The former professor also doesn’t believe Trump is pursuing a second term out of ambition since he is “an old man,” has already been president and “he’s as famous as you can get.” His motives are therefore focused on the betterment of the United States, “and that’s part of why he’s building this coalition.”

Morgan went on to comment on Trump’s “genuine personal courage” that he has exhibited within the context of the two recent assassination attempts. Trump’s insistence on getting back up after being injured by the first attempt, “to punch the air defiantly was a remarkable thing to do.” And “more remarkable” was his “being back on stage” just one week later “at another rally with an even bigger crowd, like nothing had happened.”

With regard to the second incident, Morgan marveled that Trump was cracking jokes after this attempt on his life, quipping, “I wish I could have finished my birdie putt.”

“Yes, grace under pressure” is a virtue Trump possesses, agreed Peterson, who went on to assess the quality of the former president’s humor.

“You know, Hitler wasn’t well known for his sense of humor,” he continued. And “you can’t deny this, Trump is a funny bastard. He’s funny.” This includes on social media where he is “impulsive, entertaining, unbelievably cutting and funny.”

“You know, that just doesn’t go well with the tyrannical personality,” the psychologist assessed, “because tyrants aren’t well known for being able to tolerate the court jester.”

“And so, Trump is tough and funny,” he summarized.

Addressing Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris, Peterson applied the same principle, “that previous performance is the best indicator of future performance.”

“We’ve already seen what a Biden administration looks like,” and the “foreign policy has been a complete bloody world-ending disaster under the Democrats,” he said in relation to conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East.

“The easiest thing to predict is another four years of the same thing,” he concluded.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

conflict

Israel launches new form of terrorism with its exploding pager attacks in Lebanon

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

Israel worked in secret to launch, without warning, a new era of international terror. Recent exploding pager attacks in Lebanon killed or injured mostly civilian, rather than military, members of Hezbollah and many non-members, including children.

Israel has launched a new form of terrorism according to former CIA director Leon Panetta, which he says will have far reaching “repercussions” throughout the world.

The terrorist campaign is said to have killed or injured mostly civilian, rather than military, members of Hezbollah and many non-members, including children, who are not engaged in the fighting against Israel.

Describing last week’s wave of remotely detonated pagers and walkie talkies in Lebanon, Panetta told CBS News on Sunday:

“This has gone right into the supply chain. When you have terror going into the supply chain, it makes people ask the question, ‘What the hell is next?’ This is a tactic that has repercussions, and we really don’t know what those repercussions are going to be.”

Panetta’s remarks, reported in the Times of Israel on September 23, referred to revelations that Israel had spent 15 years preparing the attacks, infiltrating mobile device supply chains to transform handheld electronics into remotely triggered bombs.

An indication of how far-reaching these repercussions will be was given by Panetta, also the former U.S. Secretary of Defense.

“The forces of war are largely in control right now,” Panetta continued, warning that the “ability to place an explosive in technology that is very prevalent these days” has brought the world into a new “war of terror,” in which anyone with a mobile electronic device may be targeted without warning.

“Mark my word, it is the battlefield of the future,” said Panetta, echoing reports that state “Israel’s pager attacks have changed the world,” leaving “us all vulnerable.”

The New York Times report presented a stark conclusion:

“But now that the line has been crossed, other countries will almost certainly start to consider this sort of tactic as within bounds.”

“It could be deployed against a military during a war or against civilians in the run-up to a war.”

The attacks conducted by Israel have been largely reported to have targeted members of Hezbollah. The examination of the facts tests the claim that the pagers were detonated solely against a “military” in this case. The United Nations has already condemned the tactic as a war crime.

Copycat attacks?

With the initial wave of attacks often presented as a “James Bond” style flash of brilliance, later reports considered the possibility of “copycat” attacks.

Philip Ingram, a former senior British military intelligence officer, told Britain’s inews, “There are real risks of copycat actions. A large organized crime group could do something like this.”

Yet the planting of explosives and ball-bearings in pagers requires a degree of coordination beyond the capability of non-state criminals. Ingram explained, “However, something of the scale and sophistication we have seen this week is really only the purview of a nation state actor.”

So far, only the nation state of Israel has dedicated its resources to the transformation of personal devices into instruments of death.

A war crime?

The attacks have been reported to have killed and injured thousands of “Hezbollah members,” giving the impression of a targeted wave of sophisticated assassinations of enemy soldiers. Yet two children were among the 37 dead, with a UN report showing a diplomat was killed in what it termed an act of “murder” and “a terrifying violation of international law.”

“Simultaneous attacks by thousands of devices … inevitably violate humanitarian law,” the report said, by “failing to distinguish” between civilians and combatants.

The Jerusalem Post reported that only “a majority” of the thousands injured and killed “were members of the group,” which is an admission that civilians were indeed targeted.

In addition to the “war crimes of murder, attacking civilians, and launching indiscriminate attacks,” the UN report pointed out that “[h]umanitarian law additionally prohibits the use of booby-traps disguised as apparently harmless portable objects,” and that “It is also a war crime to commit violence intended to spread terror among civilians, including to intimidate or deter them from supporting an adversary.”

What is Hezbollah?

Hezbollah is not merely a military organization. It also runs supermarkets, provides education and healthcare, and has a political wing, with members elected to over a third of Lebanon’s Parliament. It is designated as a terrorist organization in its entirety by the United States, with various European nations reserving that label for its military wing alone.

The New York Post’s claim that “thousands of Hezbollah fighters” were injured in the attacks excludes this important distinction between civilian and military members, legitimizing the “horrifying wounds to the groins and hands” of people severely injured whilst at home or shopping in supermarkets.

The U.K.’s Channel Four News was more measured, reporting only that “Hezbollah fighters were among thousands injured” in the attacks, which also took place in Syria and in Iraq.

NPR’s report similarly offered no evidence that any of those killed and injured were in fact combat soldiers, stating, “Many, but not all, of the pagers and walkie-talkies that unexpectedly blew up over two days across Lebanon and in some neighboring countries were in the possession of Hezbollah fighters, functionaries or allies.”

Doctors in Lebanon reported “apocalyptic” scenes, with thousands of patients arriving at once with injuries to their eyes and hands.

A media success with no military goal?

Early reports questioned the military success of the operation, with the New York Times describing it as “a tactical success with no strategic goal.” In an additional report, the Times confirmed the operation was ordered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday, September 17.

The wave of heavy airstrikes on Lebanon which followed the detonation of pagers and walkie-talkies have also been reported as strikes on Hezbollah. With up to 500 killed, including 35 children, Reuters warned “tens of thousands of civilians” had begun to flee Southern Lebanon. The same report repeated Netanyahu’s address to the Lebanese people, in which he stated, “Israel’s war is not with you, it’s with Hezbollah.”

Yet the claim that Israel’s attacks are destroying Hezbollah’s military capability have been strongly challenged.

“This is bunkum,” said Alastair Crooke, who lives in Lebanon. The former British diplomat explained to Judge Andrew Napolitano that most of those targeted in the pager attacks were not military members at all.

Secondly, he says, Hezbollah’s missiles are buried deep underground, rendering the airstrikes practically useless in destroying them.

Crooke’s blunt dismissal of these claims follows questions asked about the military purpose of both stages of Israel’s assault on Lebanon.

Israel has ‘no plan for peace’

Israel’s pager attacks have been recognized as a logistical and media victory by intelligence experts, but reports have also shown they have had no effect on Hezbollah’s war-fighting capability.

Marc Polymeropoulos, a retired CIA officer who served in the Middle East told the Washington Post, “This is the most impressive kinetic operation I can recall in my career.”

“The scope was staggering.”

Yet the Post’s report goes on to cite White House and Israeli insiders expressing doubts over the move – and also concerning Israel’s apparent lack of any clear strategy at all.

“Some officials have questioned how much the United States should support Israel if that conflict spirals into a broader war that drags in the Americans even further,” said the Post, citing one anonymous “inside American adviser.”

“The U.S. will have to decide how much they want to do to help Israel, and I don’t know what the answer to that is,” said the source, who would only speak unidentified due to the “sensitive” nature of openly questioning U.S. support for Israel. The source went on:

“[The U.S. will] likely continue to supply Israel with whatever it needs to defend itself, but there are serious voices in the administration who wonder, ‘Israel did this to themselves – why should we help them?’”

As the Post also notes, “Israel did not inform its most important allies in Washington in advance, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.” Israel has neither confirmed nor denied it was responsible for the attacks.

Questions over Israeli grand strategy have persisted for months. In July, the Washington Post reported that Israel “has no plan for peace,” with no end in sight to its war in Gaza. In the wake of the pager attacks, Bronwen Maddox of the U.K.’s Chatham House concluded in a report filed from the Lebanon border, “The Hezbollah pager attacks prove that Israel has no strategy for peace.”

‘What’s the point?’

Additional reports also doubted any military rationale behind the attacks. In an article showcasing “Israel’s James Bond-style operation” former IDF officer Dr. Ahron Bregman asked, “What’s the point?”

Suggesting the goal was towards a media – and non-military impact – Bregman continued: “This Israeli operation will be at the heart of future Hollywood films, and for good reason, but let’s dive into the more grim reality.”

Bregman says in the absence of any “Israeli tanks” to follow up the attacks, their purpose may be to provoke a response from Hezbollah which “legitimizes” a major war.

“The Israelis are trying to humiliate Hezbollah – forcing it to react forcefully, which will give Israel the international legitimacy to embark on an all-out war with its sworn enemy.”

Warning of the dimensions of this conflict, Bregman, senior teaching fellow at King’s College London’s Department of War Studies, said, “These are dangerous days. It might be that we are marching into a big, regional, Middle Eastern war involving not only Israel and Hezbollah but also the likes of Iran, the Houthis in Yemen, as well as Shia militias in Syria and Iraq.”

Both waves of Israel’s attacks on Lebanon have been of questionable military value. Both have left the combat power of Hezbollah largely intact. The same cannot be said for the lives of those destroyed in them.

The White House is reportedly frustrated with Israel’s actions, seeing them as attempts to provoke a retaliation from Hezbollah and even Iran which would spark a regional war. According to the Washington Post, “U.S. officials also noted with angst that, for nearly a year, the White House and allies have worked to tamp the flames in Lebanon.”

Israel appears to be desperate to fan these flames. Its often insinuated goal is to draw the United States into a regional crisis the White House says it has been working to avoid.

With no plan for peace, Israel has worked in secret to launch, without warning, a new era of international terror. In the absence of any strategy beyond escalation, Israel appears now to be openly seeking to internationalize its war by any means at its disposal.

Continue Reading

Automotive

Electric vehicle sales mandates doomed to fail

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

Nearly 30 per cent of EV owners worldwide intend to switch back to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.

According to new data released this week, electric vehicle (EV) sales in Europe plummeted by 36 per cent in Europe including a 69 per cent drop in Germany, the continent’s largest auto market. And according to a recent survey by McKinsey & Company, nearly 30 per cent of EV owners worldwide intend to switch back to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. Clearly, in light of growing consumer hesitation and a global slowdown in EV sales, the ambitious timelines set by governments for the EV transition are increasingly at odds with market realities.

In Canada, the Trudeau government has mandated that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks must be zero-emission by 2035, with interim targets of 20 per cent by 2026 and 60 per cent by 2030. But only 8.1 per cent (139,521) of the 1.7 million new vehicles sold in Canada in 2023 were electric, according to Statistics Canada. And it takes an average of 55 days to sell an EV in Canada—33 days longer than in 2023 and four days more than a gasoline-powered car. To achieve the Trudeau government’s 2026 target, EV sales would need to more than double in just two years and increase more than sevenfold by 2030 (assuming no change in total vehicle sales). Such rapid growth within a short timeframe is questionable at best.

It’s a similar story in the United States where the Biden administration has mandated that nearly 60 per cent of new vehicles sold must be electric by 2032 even though demand in 2024 has been lighter than expected and nearly half of American EV owners say they’re likely to switch back to ICEs. In Europe, the United Kingdom and the European Union plan to ban the sale of new ICE vehicles by 2035 yet, as previously noted, EV sales are plummeting.

Some automakers have already responded to the realities of the EV market. In April, Tesla laid off 10 per cent of its global workforce. Ford announced it will cancel the production of an electric SUV, delay the production of an electric pickup truck, and postpone the start of EV production at its Oakville, Ontario plant by two years. General Motors abandoned its goal of producing 400,000 EVs by mid-2024 due to lower-than-expected sales and revealed in August it would delay the start of production at its battery plant in Indiana by about one year, pushing the timeline to 2027.

The EV transition also faces another major hurdle—a shortage of minerals for EV batteries that can only be addressed by opening a massive number of new mines in record time. According to a 2023 study, to meet international EV adoption mandates by 2030, the world would need 50 new lithium mines, 60 new nickel mines, 17 new cobalt mines, 50 new mines for cathode production, 40 new mines for anode materials, 90 new mines for minerals needed to produce battery cells, and 81 new mines for the body and motors of the EVs themselves, for a total of 388 new mines worldwide. For context, in 2021 there were only 340 metal mines operating in Canada and the U.S. combined.

Identifying, planning and constructing a mine is a slow process. For instance, lithium production timelines range from six to nine years and for nickel 13 to 18 years—both of these elements remain critical for EV batteries. Clearly, today’s aggressive government timelines for EV adoption clash with the realities of mineral mining.

The facts are undeniable. Governments can’t dictate consumer choices via mandate. The fantastic EV adoption timelines of the Trudeau government and other governments in the western world are increasingly out of touch with the realities of production and market demand. These governments have overestimated their ability to shape the auto industry, which is why EV mandates will fail.

Continue Reading

Trending

X