The Tale
The following essay is a product of my personal perspective and understanding, which may be limited in scope and depth. It is important to recognize that my views are shaped by my individual experiences, beliefs, and knowledge. I am acutely aware of the possibility of my own limitations and acknowledge that my understanding of the topics discussed may not encompass the full spectrum of viewpoints and nuances.
While I strive to provide a thoughtful and comprehensive analysis, I am open to the possibility that my insights may fall short or lack the breadth and depth that others may offer. In no way do I intend to claim absolute authority on the matters discussed herein.
With humility, I invite readers to engage with the ideas presented critically and to contribute their own perspectives and insights to enrich the ongoing dialogue surrounding these complex issues. It is through respectful and open discourse that we can collectively strive for a more comprehensive understanding of the world we inhabit.
In the realm of sociopolitical discourse, the words of Jordan Peterson reverberate with a resonance that, at first glance, might appear to align with a perspective that traditionally finds solace on the Left side of the ideological spectrum. The assertion that “people need purpose” seems to echo the broader sentiments of Leftists, who often root their vision of human sustenance in the fertile soil of human virtues. On the opposite bank of this river of thought, we encounter the Rightists, who, by contrast, derive their perspective from the darker waters of human vices.
The dichotomy of Ideals
The dichotomy between these two worldviews is stark and readily apparent. It is a tale of purpose and egalitarianism pitted against the pursuit of personal accomplishments and the allure of fame. Leftists preach the doctrine of the ‘greater good,’ advocating for societal harmony and the common welfare. In contrast, Rightists, with their embrace of moderated greed and the pursuit of individual goals, often tread down the treacherous path of big-risk-big-reward games.
In the arena of persuasion, the tactics employed by these ideological camps differ markedly. While Rightists have demonstrated a remarkable ability to sway individuals by appealing to their vices, offering the allure of greater personal gain, Leftists have, to a significant extent, relied on the currency of fear to advance their cause.
Nothing can be explained better than with the help of examples of our recent times — The Syrian refugee crisis serves as a poignant real-life example of Leftist and Rightist ideologies clashing on the global stage. Leftist-leaning nations like Germany opened their doors to thousands of displaced Syrians, offering them refuge and a chance for a better life. This act was framed as a pursuit of the greater good, an embodiment of human virtue. Meanwhile, Rightist-leaning governments in Hungary and Poland took a different approach, emphasizing national interests and border security. This stark contrast in responses highlights the tension between humanitarian values and sovereignty, mirroring the ideological divide.
This phenomenon, which I will dub “ecological balance,” warrants a closer examination. At its core, it acknowledges that those less fortunate, often relegated to the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder, are driven by basic instincts and the pursuit of bare minimum needs. It is a disheartening fact that, for many, virtues like patriotism may exist in a distorted form, devoid of a deeper understanding of the nation they serve. It is, indeed, a truth that these individuals may struggle to find purpose in their lives, as Jordan Peterson astutely points out.
From the vantage point of those third-worlders transplanted into the first world who have witnessed firsthand the struggles of inhabitants of the first world, a disheartening narrative unfolds. Some among them resort to aggressive begging, scraping together a few pounds only to exchange them for a bottle of intoxication, finding solace in the stupor of alcohol before seeking refuge on the unforgiving streets. For those ensnared by the grasp of addiction, the release from their torment often comes in the form of government handouts, such as the Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI).
Drawing inspiration from the wise words of the late Khushwant Singh, the esteemed journalist and author, who once opined that “morality is a matter of money,” a disquieting realization emerges. The impoverished, burdened by the relentless struggle for survival, find themselves in a position where they can scarcely afford the luxury of morality. Thus, religion often becomes a surrogate for their conscience, a fragile lifeline to some semblance of virtue in an otherwise bleak existence.
From this viewpoint, I ventured to deduce that, in their quest for prosperity, Canada’s strategic embrace of affluent immigrants. Consider the stories of any immigrant families from India or China relocating to Canada — These families often possess substantial financial resources and are willing to navigate the challenges of settling in a new country. They represent the embodiment of risk-takers seeking opportunities in a foreign land, aligning with Rightist values of ambition and personal accomplishment. By attracting well-off immigrants from nations like India and China serves a dual purpose. These are not merely wealthy individuals; they are pioneers willing to brave the uncertainties of a new land, showcasing an appetite for challenges that promises to benefit the host country. In a nation’s quest for growth and development, such investors are a coveted asset.
However, as they integrate into Canadian society, they may also adopt Leftist ideals of egalitarianism and contribute to the country’s economic growth, showcasing the nuanced interplay of ideologies within immigrant communities.
Furthermore, these newcomers tend to assimilate seamlessly into the ranks of the upper-class white population. This harmony is underpinned by several factors: firstly, the inherent egalitarianism found in white countries; secondly, shared purposes and ambitions in life; and thirdly, a profound awareness of the stakes at play, instilling a commitment to abide by the law of the land.
However, the question remains: how does one safeguard these affluent immigrants in their new homeland? The answer, it seems, lies in a strategy that employs the least fortunate within the country to act as guardians for the more privileged. The plight of military veterans in many countries provides a stark illustration of the interplay between the poor and the privileged. While some veterans successfully transition to prosperous civilian lives, others, particularly those who struggled with physical or mental health issues, find themselves among the impoverished ranks.
This tactical maneuver brings to mind the sage advice imparted by the fictional character Don Draper to his alter ego, Dick Whitman, that one might “be poor because [they] joined the army.” It underscores the bitter reality that, in the pursuit of a grander socioeconomic equilibrium, nations often rely on the sacrifices of their most vulnerable citizens to protect the interests of the elite. By sending the disenfranchised to the borders and wars, the nation effectively utilizes its own “disadvantaged segments” to protect those who hold its economic future in their hands. This divide underscores the complex relationship between societal values, economic disparities, and the sacrifices made by the less fortunate to protect the interests of the more privileged.
The intricate dance between Leftist ideals, Rightist perspectives, and the complex interplay of socioeconomic forces is what our modern society is made of. It is both intriguing and disconcerting.
Jordan Peterson’s call for purpose serves as a rallying cry, echoing across the political divide, while the strategies employed to achieve these goals reveal a sobering reflection of our world’s stark realities.
