Principles are a basic, foundational, self-evident propositions that cannot be deduced from any other proposition. They can stand by themselves. Along with facts and logic, principles form the basis for reasoning and argument. Reason, in turn influences decision-making, organization, solution development, strategy, and tactics. Good first principles are rock-solid and unassailable assertions, with no extraneous or unnecessary complexity. Good principles are broadly applicable and remain unchanged over many years and in many different situations.
Solutions, are specific, detailed answers or algorithms aimed at solving to specific, well-defined problems. Solutions are derived by assessing a situation and applying first principles to articulate details.
Your additions to the principles Peterson articulates are not good things to include in a statement of first principles. "Uphold assumptions against competing assumptions ... by any means necessary." That unnecessarily focuses the principle on the idea of competing assumptions, rather than the much broader and simpler "western assumptions are valid," which can be applied in many different scenarios whether assumptions are directly challenged by competing assumptions or not. Furthermore, "must defend with violence if necessary" also clutters the principle with unnecessary prescriptions. This is the kind of directive that is much more appropriate to establish in a specific context, when you have a clearly defined threat and something specific at stake.
The other comments all have similar issues. They are derived conclusions intended for specific conditions and scenarios, not broadly applicable and self-evident first principles. Also, in the speech Peterson actually elaborates on these principles if you're interested in more details. So to answer your question:
Quote:So I ask again. Is Peterson offering anything that isn't a boomer's guide to ethnic and civilizational martyrdom?
The answer is quite obviously yes. Peterson offers clear, well-articulated knowledge, ideas, and principles that are the product of rigorous thought and professional experience. When he provides first principles, he articulates strong, refined principles that do exactly what a principle should. If someone wants to start a revolution based on those principles, they can derive a more aggressive manifesto on their own. When he offers advice, the advice is clear and thoroughly explained so the reader or listener can do a fair assessment and choose to adopt or reject the advice (a quality that Roosh's
Bang also has and a reason why I was very satisfied with that purchase). Peterson helps provide intellectual tools, knowledge, and advice others can use to further their own goals, whatever those might be.
Quote:"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
These are really proverbs, not principles. The first one is an accidental proverb since it was originally part of a parable and the phrase by itself is out of context. You could call them "rules for life" if you want. But the "rules for life" aren't necessarily principles. The rules for life may be derived from principles, but the rules are meant to be practical guidelines for everyday behavior, not first principles to guide major decision-making on important issues such as mass immigration and population displacement.
The reason I brought up principles is because you have made very careless accusations about the consequences of listening to Peterson, when in fact those accusations are flatly contradicted by very clear statements Peterson has made. Your attempt to assert that Peterson's message is one of martyrdom is not supported by evidence.