The Jordan Peterson thread

Coja Petrus Uscan

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Jordan was recently interviewed by Bret Weinstein.

So much for Jordan's supposed weaving towards Christendom. I only listened to the first hour, but it was all about evolutionary biology and Jordan's ideas of how human's evolved to create religions over thousands of years.

Jordan and Bret may have evolved from apes, but I didn't.


Clean mirror: https://tube.connect.cafe/watch?v=O55mvoZbz4Y

First. I don't believe Jordan and Bret are controlled opposition. Most of the population are some sort of normie. It's not surprising that people in the public arena are also normies. There is not a magic transition that happens after you can clock up more than 10,000 video views, in which you know everything and then go about deceiving people. Jordan and Bret just have different ideas.

As mentioned, at least the first hour of this is a discussion of evolutionary biology (evobio). It is very easy to misconstrue Bret and Jordan by either not listening to them enough or being willingly or unwillingly deceitful. Fake news propagandists take their discussion on evobio and cast it as them promoting Darwinism and other things you can imagine.

I met a guy who he said he'd watched every one of JP's videos and he asked me what I thought of JP promoting Darwinist ideas. I went on to explain that JP outlines evobio and goes on to say repeatedly, profusely – implied and unimplied – how this should not be the basis of society and they we need (essentially) philosophy to save us from evolutionary impuses. If I was to sum up his work and ideas it would be as that. This guy refused to digest that, despite having watched all of his videos. Another guy interjected with the same critique. They repeated the assertion and I went over it several times specifically, citing examples, of why that is not the case. They kept asking the same question. For the left there is no come back for talking about evobio. It hits too close to things they want to ingore.

You can see such behaviour in JP's interview on Norwegian evening time thought program Skavlan. On which a woman brought up the gender wage gap. JP was quite specific as to why there may be other factors as to why there is a wage gap other than the inferred and inherent terrorist nature of men. In response she asked, “But what about the gender pay gap?” There is no benefit from them in considering what he says and there is no opposition who make it impossible for them to do otherwise. Liberals have sown their own crop with this phenomena.

For some time they discuss the reality of evobio, before moving on to why we can't let evolutionary impulses run rampant in society. But their ideas of what to do about it are admittedly thin. Bret talks about the mystery of consciousness and how it can transcend biology. How a creature can be wired to do something, but come up with ideas that leads them to doing something else.

At the heart of their quandary is the exact same ammunition used by the left, who cover up all the things that JP and Bret might mention. The quandary is – biology leads to unequal outcomes. This is a wholly materialist position. But it is one of reality in a materialist world. While the left chooses to ignore biology and says unequal outcomes are derived from evil right-wingers.

If you ever engage in either of those arguments, then you are stuck in an endless and and unpeaceable loop of materialist gripes and grievances.

This is maybe the primary reason why liberals (who are no longer a force of influence worth mentioning) let the doors open to the left who now control all global and most Western institutions. Liberals began looking at the material word in scientific terms and desired material improvement. When they turned that method to society they began to measure how things were unequal and could point to their origins. This may not be fundamentally wrong, but it is almost definitely an inevitable pit-stop before endless leftward drift.

The liberals usurped institutions from the old ecclesiastical order. Oxford and Cambridge, for example, were formerly little more than seminaries. They then sat idly by as these institutions started to fill up with open Maoists. Liberals preferred to be around an increasing number of all manner of intersectionalists rather than Bill Buckley or Dr Pasta Martin Ssempa. And when did we start to hear any discontent from any liberal about the left? At absolutely no point in time in which they were scrubbing institutions of conservative, traditional or right-wing individuals. It was the point at which anyone with half an empirical brain had found out that universities are heavily on the road to becoming radical left indoctrination camps and the liberals could not hide they were now being purged. This alone is reason why you should never ally yourself with liberals. And by that I mean real liberals, which is people who believe the most important organising factor in society is the individual. This is a small minority.

Liberals are by definition quite free and easy; and the ideology is itself fundamentally incapable of enforcing itself. A dictatorship of man-made and ever-changing liberal values is not liberal. Such a dictatorship would also have to deal with every person in their jurisdiction being a font of morality, self-professed wisdom, truth, authority etc. They don't enforce their ideas because they can't. So in the wake of them destroying everything good from the past we have been doing all a liberal society can yield, which is move left endlessly.

Peterson and Brett are just dealing with a materialist issue from another angle. One that sounds much more reasonable and given to a cohesive society. But they are just throw backs from the 19th century, who want another crack at their ideas not going off the rails, as they have for the last 100 years.

I have seen numerous examples of counters to the materialist solutions put forward by leftists, liberals and the right-wing. Most of them are from the past. Recently I listened to an old interview (https://invidious.zapashcanon.fr/watch?v=pRh_mXsXEp4) with a simple village man, born in the late 1800s. He lived in a time when the primary basis for life was not a materialist outlook. It was a spiritual one, where what was more important did not physically exist. This is now completely unknown to the vast majority of modern people. This man and his compatriots could be said to have been oppressed by industrialists and landlordism. Yet they did not hate or harbour ill will to their overlords. They took it as their cross to bear and continued their simple lives on human connection and communion. As the 20th century rolled through his church was invaded by Marxist, sent in by the church hierarchy. The Marxists told them to turn everything upside down, hate your oppressor and get what you are owed on this earth. He knew it was wrong, even though he and those in his community could be said to have been wronged. He did not look at the world through the lens in which the material is the most important and that is the only lens through which Jordan Peterson, the Weinsteins, Joe Rogan, Sam Harris and other fellow travelers can see this.

How would JP analyse this village man's outlook? More egg-heading, playing God.

Peterson and Weinstein are just playing a more elegant and dressed up version of fighting over scraps in the bush. And that's no joke.

Last post in this thread unless Peterson repents.
 
Last edited:

Eusebius Erasmus

Kingfisher
^ this is my biggest problem with Peterson, that many in this thread fail to realize: he’s a chameleon, and changes his persona to fit his audience.

When he’s with Jon Pageau, he appears to be veering towards Christianity. When he’s with Brett Weinstein, he fully endorses biological determinism. He grifts in the direction of the conservative currents.

Peterson is a recent drug addict and possibly a demoniac. We should pray for him, but unless he confesses Jesus Christ as Lord and God, then listening to Peterson is wasted time.
 
I read the Bible in 2015 and made many pro-God statements at that time, but didn't come to Christ until four years later. If someone speaks well of Christianity, like Jordan Peterson and Paul Joseph Watson of late, they may still be many years away from faith. It's a long journey.
It ain't over until they're at heaven's door. Plant seeds and till fields, but let God grow the crops.
 
Jordan was recently interviewed by Bret Weinstein.

So much for Jordan's supposed weaving towards Christendom. I only listened to the first hour, but it was all about evolutionary biology and Jordan's ideas of how human's evolved to create religions over thousands of years.

Jordan and Bret may have evolved from apes, but I didn't.


Clean mirror: https://tube.connect.cafe/watch?v=O55mvoZbz4Y

First. I don't believe Jordan and Bret are controlled opposition. Most of the population are some sort of normie. It's not surprising that people in the public arena are also normies. There is not a magic transition that happens after you can clock up more than 10,000 video views, in which you know everything and then go about deceiving people. Jordan and Bret just have different ideas.

As mentioned, at least the first hour of this is a discussion of evolutionary biology (evobio). It is very easy to misconstrue Bret and Jordan by either not listening to them enough or being willingly or unwillingly deceitful. Fake news propagandists take their discussion on evobio and cast it as them promoting Darwinism and other things you can imagine.

I met a guy who he said he'd watched every one of JP's videos and he asked me what I thought of JP promoting Darwinist ideas. I went on to explain that JP outlines evobio and goes on to say repeatedly, profusely – implied and unimplied – how this should not be the basis of society and they we need (essentially) philosophy to save us from evolutionary impuses. If I was to sum up his work and ideas it would be as that. This guy refused to digest that, despite having watched all of his videos. Another guy interjected with the same critique. They repeated the assertion and I went over it several times specifically, citing examples, of why that is not the case. They kept asking the same question. For the left there is no come back for talking about evobio. It hits too close to things they want to ingore.

You can see such behaviour in JP's interview on Norwegian evening time thought program Skavlan. On which a woman brought up the gender wage gap. JP was quite specific as to why there may be other factors as to why there is a wage gap other than the inferred and inherent terrorist nature of men. In response she asked, “But what about the gender pay gap?” There is no benefit from them in considering what he says and there is no opposition who make it impossible for them to do otherwise. Liberals have sown their own crop with this phenomena.

For some time they discuss the reality of evobio, before moving on to why we can't let evolutionary impulses run rampant in society. But their ideas of what to do about it are admittedly thin. Bret talks about the mystery of consciousness and how it can transcend biology. How a creature can be wired to do something, but come up with ideas that leads them to doing something else.

At the heart of their quandary is the exact same ammunition used by the left, who cover up all the things that JP and Bret might mention. The quandary is – biology leads to unequal outcomes. This is a wholly materialist position. But it is one of reality in a materialist world. While the left chooses to ignore biology and says unequal outcomes are derived from evil right-wingers.

If you ever engage in either of those arguments, then you are stuck in an endless and and unpeaceable loop of materialist gripes and grievances.

This is maybe the primary reason why liberals (who are no longer a force of influence worth mentioning) let the doors open to the left who now control all global and most Western institutions. Liberals began looking at the material word in scientific terms and desired material improvement. When they turned that method to society they began to measure how things were unequal and could point to their origins. This may not be fundamentally wrong, but it is almost definitely an inevitable pit-stop before endless leftward drift.

The liberals usurped institutions from the old ecclesiastical order. Oxford and Cambridge, for example, were formerly little more than seminaries. They then sat idly by as these institutions started to fill up with open Maoists. Liberals preferred to be around an increasing number of all manner of intersectionalists rather than Bill Buckley or Dr Pasta Martin Ssempa. And when did we start to hear any discontent from any liberal about the left? At absolutely no point in time in which they were scrubbing institutions of conservative, traditional or right-wing individuals. It was the point at which anyone with half an empirical brain had found out that universities are heavily on the road to becoming radical left indoctrination camps and the liberals could not hide they were now being purged. This alone is reason why you should never ally yourself with liberals. And by that I mean real liberals, which is people who believe the most important organising factor in society is the individual. This is a small minority.

Liberals are by definition quite free and easy; and the ideology is itself fundamentally incapable of enforcing itself. A dictatorship of man-made and ever-changing liberal values is not liberal. Such a dictatorship would also have to deal with every person in their jurisdiction being a font of morality, self-professed wisdom, truth, authority etc. They don't enforce their ideas because they can't. So in the wake of them destroying everything good from the past we have been doing all a liberal society can yield, which is move left endlessly.

Peterson and Brett are just dealing with a materialist issue from another angle. One that sounds much more reasonable and given to a cohesive society. But they are just throw backs from the 19th century, who want another crack at their ideas not going off the rails, as they have for the last 100 years.

I have seen numerous examples of counters to the materialist solutions put forward by leftists, liberals and the right-wing. Most of them are from the past. Recently I listened to an old interview (https://invidious.zapashcanon.fr/watch?v=pRh_mXsXEp4) with a simple village man, born in the late 1800s. He lived in a time when the primary basis for life was not a materialist outlook. It was a spiritual one, where what was more important did not physically exist. This is now completely unknown to the vast majority of modern people. This man and his compatriots could be said to have been oppressed by industrialists and landlordism. Yet they did not hate or harbour ill will to their overlords. They took it as their cross to bear and continued their simple lives on human connection and communion. As the 20th century rolled through his church was invaded by Marxist, sent in by the church hierarchy. The Marxists told them to turn everything upside down, hate your oppressor and get what you are owed on this earth. He knew it was wrong, even though he and those in his community could be said to have been wronged. He did not look at the world through the lens in which the material is the most important and that is the only lens through which Jordan Peterson, the Weinsteins, Joe Rogan, Sam Harris and other fellow travelers can see this.

How would JP analyse this village man's outlook? More egg-heading, playing God.

Peterson and Weinstein are just playing a more elegant and dressed up version of fighting over scraps in the bush. And that's no joke.

Last post in this thread unless Peterson repents.

Does he always cake on the makeup?

I listened for a couple minutes but as usual he says very little with a lot of qualifiers.
 

NoMoreTO

Ostrich
I read the Bible in 2015 and made many pro-God statements at that time, but didn't come to Christ until four years later. If someone speaks well of Christianity, like Jordan Peterson and Paul Joseph Watson of late, they may still be many years away from faith. It's a long journey.

I agree whole heartedly.

Many Catholics are very excited that he has said good things about the religion, and his point that acceptance of death and evil as a cross is something that the modern secular world fully lacks.

What I see Peterson doing is "playing with the idea" of Christianity. I myself used to do this perhaps for 5 - 10 years. I was raised in it, and held it in high regard, loved it in many ways, was fascinated by it. but didn't really believe or didn't want to conform my life to Christ. Even now, strong Faith is a grace we all have to keep praying for.

The best signs I saw in the Jonathan Pageau interview were that:
(1) He says grace before meals
(2) His wife's faith has increased dramatically.

JBP will be tempted to "Play with Ideas". He has been doing this his whole life. I would suspect that he will go down the evolutionary monkey psychology path when talking to Bret Weinstein, and talk about Psychadelics with Joe Rogan. I'd be interested to see how much he pushes his love of Catholicism up against Joe Rogan who was baptized Catholic but has thrown it aside quite aggressively.

Just as you had to pull yourself out of your PUA life for God, Peterson will have to stop "playing with ideas" if he becomes a serious Christian. He will have to throw out so many things he loves to talk about. He will have to repent, not just that he is a flawed human being which he seems to have in good hand, but that he was wrong about so many things. That he hadn't been leading guys down the right path.

He will have to say that he is now humbly reading the Saints and learning about Truth. That he is a novice. He will have to dismantle the false teachings of Yung , Nietzsche, and monkey social hierarchy. He would be the guy to do it. I hope that he hears God's call.
 

NoMoreTO

Ostrich
How would JP analyse this village man's outlook? More egg-heading, playing God.

Peterson and Weinstein are just playing a more elegant and dressed up version of fighting over scraps in the bush. And that's no joke.

Last post in this thread unless Peterson repents.

Agree - No Joke. I am half wondering if he is coming to the good, or that he will up the ante so to speak on his "evolutionary psychologicalization" of theology.

Explaining God as an "Evolutionary Metaphor" or a "True Metaphysical Myth" is perfidious.
 

DeFide

Robin
Peterson lost me when he teamed up with grifter pundit Jews like Shapiro, Rubin and Weinstein to deliver their tedious and damaging opinions harder and faster than ever before. I simply havent lost sight of that in spite of the drug addiction, insane diet strictures, comas and brain damage that mercifully put an end to this unholy alliance.
 

Eusebius Erasmus

Kingfisher
Peterson lost me when he teamed up with grifter pundit Jews like Shapiro, Rubin and Weinstein to deliver their tedious and damaging opinions harder and faster than ever before. I simply havent lost sight of that in spite of the drug addiction, insane diet strictures, comas and brain damage that mercifully put an end to this unholy alliance.
Hopefully he repents. His current trajectory is destructive.
 

get2choppaaa

Pelican
I don't think there's a high degree of likely hood of repentant confession for Mr Peterson.

His focus on fame, wealth, and pride of being a trusted figure dont lend well for the penitent man who rejects earthly success for heavenly salvation.

Also the guy who says they are an expert on Solzhenitsyn yet will not address his book 200 years together is a charlatan.

I read his work post divorce at the height of my own debauchery. It only encouraged me to rely on myself as a source of help.

I hope he will change his mentality. I know Fr. Josiah Trenham is a big proponent... But I don't think Peterson is a man who promotes Christian world views... Only cultist acceptance of him as the savior.
 

J.E.

Robin

As Roosh said, I believe it will take a couple of years before Jordan Peterson becomes Christian. Given his education and firm beliefs in evolutionary biology, that are dogmas in themselves, and his breaking point it will probably take one to three years. Peterson, as it was with Roosh, has much to lose for converting overnight. His ego is coupled with the image and success he built. The less you have to lose, the more likely it is you will make a complete turn overnight. The more you have to lose, the more likely it is you will reconsider and doubt yourself many times before you make the final decision to
BECOME CATHOLIC!
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
Also the guy who says they are an expert on Solzhenitsyn yet will not address his book 200 years together is a charlatan.
Although to be honest in many countries you can buy all his books, translated or not, except this one.
My own mom had to read all of them during her studies in russia, yet had never heard about this one.

So yeah I'm not trying to excuse anyone but there is an omerta going on here.
Not a surprise for anybody on this forum I guess, though.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
Although to be honest in many countries you can buy all his books, translated or not, except this one.
My own mom had to read all of them during her studies in russia, yet had never heard about this one.
A happy exception is France ; for some reason, even though the Jews are all-powerful in France today, they never banned Fayard's French translation of 200 years together (I guess they don't need to as few people read it), which is easily available even today on mainstream French bookstores.

Ryssen who got jailed for his "anti-semitic" writings draws a lot of his material from 200 years together, but it seems the Jews were content with pretending not to see the connection and claiming it all springs exclusively from Ryssen's sick brain.
 

Troller

Pelican
He said in a video I posted he was against the eco agenda. And that for me means he is not a whore. I think he is blunt and basic. And knows too much concepts, ideologies and shit. Also even though he might starting to believe in Christ, step by step, he still wants to hang out with the cool crowd. The satanists. Because it´s an illusion of happiness. Like those whores in Instagram who pretend they´re life is perfect and live in garbage cans. Happiness is only found in Christ and specially family. Sooner or later if he doesn´t make the right choice he will end up in the same destination he was before. Christianism is not only believing in God. It´s good and sane. It´s a purification lifestyle. That heals and makes your body and mind good. Managing to live 100% in this lifestyle is the hardest part. God provides but we have free will. We need to make our part. But I could be wrong on him. Time will tell.
 
Last edited:

BeefStew

Pigeon
I don't care about Marvel, but if I did I would be annoyed. Virtually every piece of fictional entertainment nowadays has been infiltrated by the crazy left. You can't watch or read anything anymore without having some leftist writer shoving his political opinions and narrative in your face, and an otherwise good movie/story/character is ruined with this contrived nonsense.

I guess the movies (that I haven't seen) have already sunk the Marvel ship, but might as well completely burn the IP to the ground if we can spread more propaganda.
 
Top