The Jordan Peterson thread

All good posts with great points by all.

For those of us who are true believers, there are many inconsistencies and cringe moments we can nitpick. Have at it if you wish.

But we must understand that he is not on our playing field.

I believe as Christians we should give the benefit of the doubt and focus on the good, especially in the absence of deliberate calls away from God.

I will offer the following thoughts.

If an intrepid journalist uncovers a massive scoop of a very unsavoury nature in regards to Peterson, or he is proven to be collaborating with the Clintons, Bill Gates and (((insert other name here))) for the satanic annihilation of our planet, then I'm all for standing beside everyone and giving him a hearty thumbs down. But in the absence of such evidence, I choose to take him at his word.

Peterson as a 'gateway drug' to Christianity...

That some might not make it all the way and remain suspended in a sort of gnostic, neoplatonism, while unfortunate, is mostly irrelevant. I think Peterson's work has done more good than harm, and that most people will eventually make it all the way home. We can't expect everyone to go from 0 to 100. We can't expect people drowning in secular sin to just enthusiastically pick up the writings of the church fathers out of nowhere and have a radical transformation overnight. Although this is ideal. We should look at our own cringe past as examples, and not forget the log in our own eye.

Our own resident truth-slinger Michael Witcoff has spoken out on his involvement with occultism and masonry, and I enjoyed his book On The Masons And their Lies. I believe he stated something about always seeking truth while on his spiritual journey (and not intentionally inviting evil) but just being misguided and led astray by delusions of secret, mystical knowledge. The same critique applies to Peterson.

Getting further into the weeds of Jungian psychology and it's influence on Peterson...

He seems to view everything through that archetypal / evolutionary / mystical lens. I have read everything by Jung and I will admit there is much insight into the human mind to be gleaned from him. He is superior to Freud, who was in my opinion a degenerate and a complete fraud. He created a dishonest system to justify his passions and delude people (this is similar to my critique of Luther).

That Jung may go down a dark or redundant or fruitless road now and again doesn't mean we have to blindly follow him there. We can exercise our critical thinking and moral boundaries. It doesn't mean we have to dispense with the entirety of his work or dismiss his insights because he wasn't explicitly Christian enough (although he was Christian, and the son of a minister). It would be like scoffing at the idea of reading Father Seraphim Rose because he was once a homosexual, for example. I know this is different as he eventually and unequivocally accepted Christ as the ultimate truth and dedicated the rest of his life to him. Still, there could be entire threads dedicated to why his conversion was insincere because of the way his beard looked in that one photo, etc. That because he was American he wasn't pro-Russian enough and didn't care about the plight of the Slavic people. Or how Michael Witcoff is a Mossad agent sent to infiltrate and destroy the Orthosphere. It all just comes across as silly.

So on the alchemical and mystical stuff -- I agree Jung's attempts at making these kinds of connections were ultimately futile at best or blasphemous at worst. Before Christ, people were clawing at the void. Some more successfully than others. The 3 wise men who visited baby Jesus were Persian astronomers. Ancient Greeks were philosophers and physicists. The Hebrews had a moral law. Not everything pre-Christian was undeniably bad, it's just that we had to alloy those things with a greater understanding of Christ as the logos incarnate and the ultimate truth. Christianity absorbed and improved these things. We didn't abandon mathematics or sports after the arrival of our Lord and saviour. We just now orient the pursuit and true meaning of these things towards God and the wonder of his creation. Hence the moral universe we cannot evade, no matter how flowery our language or how much we try and delude our conscience.

So things can still bubble up from our pagan / pre-Christian past, and Jung was curious how to engage with and reconcile these things. That he ultimately missed the mark is a valid point.

I don't believe the whole 'integrating the shadow' thing as discussed by Peterson is to deceive people or perform evil acts. He views this as a means to strengthen oneself and help heal unnecessary suffering -- standing up to a tyrannical boss, gathering the courage to ask for a raise, etc. Eliminating unnecessary suffering and helping people function is essentially the whole MO of a clinical psychologist. I understand the term can be off-putting for some as it can denote darkness or invocation. I just don't see it that way.

I agree that prayer is superior, and God is the ultimate 'life coach'. But I wouldn't automatically attribute sinister motives to Peterson until proven.

On his avoidance of addressing the JQ, who knows? He might not want to bite the hand that feeds him (big entertainment industry $). He might also not genuinely understand it, not having the fortune of being raised as a Catholic or Orthodox (the traditional opposition and tab-keepers of Jews). If the former, and he is a practising Christian, it would be dishonest. If the latter, he should invite Dr. E Michael Jones on his show for a thorough red-pilling on the matter.

Christ still remains the ultimate truth to which we hope Peterson, Pageau et al will eventually arrive.
 
Last edited:
All good posts with great points by all.

For those of us who are true believers, there are many inconsistencies and cringe moments we can nitpick. Have at it if you wish.

But we must understand that he is not on our playing field.

I believe as Christians we should give the benefit of the doubt and focus on the good, especially in the absence of deliberate calls away from God.

I will offer the following thoughts.

If an intrepid journalist uncovers a massive scoop of a very unsavoury nature in regards to Peterson, or he is proven to be collaborating with the Clintons, Bill Gates and (((insert other name here))) for the satanic annihilation of our planet, then I'm all for standing beside everyone and giving him a hearty thumbs down. But in the absence of such evidence, I choose to take him at his word.

Peterson as a 'gateway drug' to Christianity...

That some might not make it all the way and remain suspended in a sort of gnostic, neoplatonism, while unfortunate, is mostly irrelevant. I think Peterson's work has done more good than harm, and that most people will eventually make it all the way home. We can't expect everyone to go from 0 to 100. We can't expect people drowning in secular sin to just enthusiastically pick up the writings of the church fathers out of nowhere and have a radical transformation overnight. Although this is ideal. We should look at our own cringe past as examples, and not forget the log in our own eye.

Our own resident truth-slinger Michael Witcoff has spoken out on his involvement with occultism and masonry, and I enjoyed his book On The Masons And their Lies. I believe he stated something about always seeking truth while on his spiritual journey (and not intentionally inviting evil) but just being misguided and led astray by delusions of secret, mystical knowledge. The same critique applies to Peterson.

Getting further into the weeds of Jungian psychology and it's influence on Peterson...

He seems to view everything through that archetypal / evolutionary / mystical lens. I have read everything by Jung and I will admit there is much insight into the human mind to be gleaned from him. He is superior to Freud, who was in my opinion a degenerate and a complete fraud. He created a dishonest system to justify his passions and delude people (this is similar to my critique of Luther).

That Jung may go down a dark or redundant or fruitless road now and again doesn't mean we have to blindly follow him there. We can exercise our critical thinking and moral boundaries. It doesn't mean we have to dispense with the entirety of his work or dismiss his insights because he wasn't explicitly Christian enough (although he was Christian, and the son of a minister). It would be like scoffing at the idea of reading Father Seraphim Rose because he was once a homosexual, for example. I know this is different as he eventually and unequivocally accepted Christ as the ultimate truth and dedicated the rest of his life to him. Still, there could be entire threads dedicated to why his conversion was insincere because of the way his beard looked in that one photo, etc. That because he was American he wasn't pro-Russian enough and didn't care about the plight of the Slavic people. Or how Michael Witcoff is a Mossad agent sent to infiltrate and destroy the Orthosphere. It all just comes across as silly.

So on the alchemical and mystical stuff -- I agree Jung's attempts at making these kinds of connections were ultimately futile at best or blasphemous at worst. Before Christ, people were clawing at the void. Some more successfully than others. The 3 wise men who visited baby Jesus were Persian astronomers. Ancient Greeks were philosophers and physicists. The Hebrews had a moral law. Not everything pre-Christian was undeniably bad, it's just that we had to alloy those things with a greater understanding of Christ as the logos incarnate and the ultimate truth. Christianity absorbed and improved these things. We didn't abandon mathematics or sports after the arrival of our Lord and saviour. We just now orient the pursuit and true meaning of these things towards God and the wonder of his creation. Hence the moral universe we cannot evade, no matter how flowery our language or how much we try and delude our conscience.

So things can still bubble up from our pagan / pre-Christian past, and Jung was curious how to engage with and reconcile these things. That he ultimately missed the mark is a valid point.

I don't believe the whole 'integrating the shadow' thing as discussed by Peterson is to deceive people or perform evil acts. He views this as a means to strengthen oneself and help heal unnecessary suffering -- standing up to a tyrannical boss, gathering the courage to ask for a raise, etc. Eliminating unnecessary suffering and helping people function is essentially the whole MO of a clinical psychologist. I understand the term can be off-putting for some as it can denote darkness or invocation. I just don't see it that way.

I agree that prayer is superior, and God is the ultimate 'life coach'. But I wouldn't automatically attribute sinister motives to Peterson until proven.

On his avoidance of addressing the JQ, who knows? He might not want to bite the hand that feeds him (big entertainment industry $). He might also not genuinely understand it, not having the fortune of being raised as a Catholic or Orthodox (the traditional opposition and tab-keepers of Jews). If the former, and he is a practising Christian, it would be dishonest. If the latter, he should invite Dr. E Michael Jones on his show for a thorough red-pilling on the matter.

Christ still remains the ultimate truth to which we hope Peterson, Pageau et al will eventually arrive.
I prefer Jonathan Pageau. At least he doesn't take inspiration from Aleister Crowley the Satanist.
 

Lawrence87

Woodpecker
Orthodox
All good posts with great points by all.

For those of us who are true believers, there are many inconsistencies and cringe moments we can nitpick. Have at it if you wish.

But we must understand that he is not on our playing field.

I believe as Christians we should give the benefit of the doubt and focus on the good, especially in the absence of deliberate calls away from God.

I will offer the following thoughts.

If an intrepid journalist uncovers a massive scoop of a very unsavoury nature in regards to Peterson, or he is proven to be collaborating with the Clintons, Bill Gates and (((insert other name here))) for the satanic annihilation of our planet, then I'm all for standing beside everyone and giving him a hearty thumbs down. But in the absence of such evidence, I choose to take him at his word.

Peterson as a 'gateway drug' to Christianity...

That some might not make it all the way and remain suspended in a sort of gnostic, neoplatonism, while unfortunate, is mostly irrelevant. I think Peterson's work has done more good than harm, and that most people will eventually make it all the way home. We can't expect everyone to go from 0 to 100. We can't expect people drowning in secular sin to just enthusiastically pick up the writings of the church fathers out of nowhere and have a radical transformation overnight. Although this is ideal. We should look at our own cringe past as examples, and not forget the log in our own eye.

Our own resident truth-slinger Michael Witcoff has spoken out on his involvement with occultism and masonry, and I enjoyed his book On The Masons And their Lies. I believe he stated something about always seeking truth while on his spiritual journey (and not intentionally inviting evil) but just being misguided and led astray by delusions of secret, mystical knowledge. The same critique applies to Peterson.

Getting further into the weeds of Jungian psychology and it's influence on Peterson...

He seems to view everything through that archetypal / evolutionary / mystical lens. I have read everything by Jung and I will admit there is much insight into the human mind to be gleaned from him. He is superior to Freud, who was in my opinion a degenerate and a complete fraud. He created a dishonest system to justify his passions and delude people (this is similar to my critique of Luther).

That Jung may go down a dark or redundant or fruitless road now and again doesn't mean we have to blindly follow him there. We can exercise our critical thinking and moral boundaries. It doesn't mean we have to dispense with the entirety of his work or dismiss his insights because he wasn't explicitly Christian enough (although he was Christian, and the son of a minister). It would be like scoffing at the idea of reading Father Seraphim Rose because he was once a homosexual, for example. I know this is different as he eventually and unequivocally accepted Christ as the ultimate truth and dedicated the rest of his life to him. Still, there could be entire threads dedicated to why his conversion was insincere because of the way his beard looked in that one photo, etc. That because he was American he wasn't pro-Russian enough and didn't care about the plight of the Slavic people. Or how Michael Witcoff is a Mossad agent sent to infiltrate and destroy the Orthosphere. It all just comes across as silly.

So on the alchemical and mystical stuff -- I agree Jung's attempts at making these kinds of connections were ultimately futile at best or blasphemous at worst. Before Christ, people were clawing at the void. Some more successfully than others. The 3 wise men who visited baby Jesus were Persian astronomers. Ancient Greeks were philosophers and physicists. The Hebrews had a moral law. Not everything pre-Christian was undeniably bad, it's just that we had to alloy those things with a greater understanding of Christ as the logos incarnate and the ultimate truth. Christianity absorbed and improved these things. We didn't abandon mathematics or sports after the arrival of our Lord and saviour. We just now orient the pursuit and true meaning of these things towards God and the wonder of his creation. Hence the moral universe we cannot evade, no matter how flowery our language or how much we try and delude our conscience.

So things can still bubble up from our pagan / pre-Christian past, and Jung was curious how to engage with and reconcile these things. That he ultimately missed the mark is a valid point.

I don't believe the whole 'integrating the shadow' thing as discussed by Peterson is to deceive people or perform evil acts. He views this as a means to strengthen oneself and help heal unnecessary suffering -- standing up to a tyrannical boss, gathering the courage to ask for a raise, etc. Eliminating unnecessary suffering and helping people function is essentially the whole MO of a clinical psychologist. I understand the term can be off-putting for some as it can denote darkness or invocation. I just don't see it that way.

I agree that prayer is superior, and God is the ultimate 'life coach'. But I wouldn't automatically attribute sinister motives to Peterson until proven.

On his avoidance of addressing the JQ, who knows? He might not want to bite the hand that feeds him (big entertainment industry $). He might also not genuinely understand it, not having the fortune of being raised as a Catholic or Orthodox (the traditional opposition and tab-keepers of Jews). If the former, and he is a practising Christian, it would be dishonest. If the latter, he should invite Dr. E Michael Jones on his show for a thorough red-pilling on the matter.

Christ still remains the ultimate truth to which we hope Peterson, Pageau et al will eventually arrive.
Personally I think the problem with Peterson and Jung etc. Over pre-Christian authors is that they talk about Christ, yet are not members of the Orthodox Church. As St. Ignatius Brianchaninov said:

"Anyone who does not belong to the one Holy Orthodox Church, yet still dares to write about Christ and the Christian faith and morality is a false teacher."
(The Field - Cultivating Salvation p30)

He might somehow be a gateway drug to Christianity, that is probably so for those who sincerely seek truth, but he can also be a dead end if you get caught in his ideas but like him refuse to confess Christ.

I don't think Orthodox Christians should promote him, or encourage people to read him, because he is a false teacher.
 

Hannibal

Ostrich
Gold Member
Jordan Peterson is a leftist who believes in gay marriage, abortion, and the vaccine. If you think he’s a conservative, then conservatism is dead.

Peterson is one of those guys who throws a beach ball into the pool to corral all the little dolphins to the appropriate side.

His verbal voodoo is directly responsible for the continued atomization of all who would listen, the false siren song of individualism and the perverse worship of the self. It is literally what got us in this mess and why he is still "allowed" to say what he says.

Ask him about why jews run so many institutions and he will assure you with all the sight of a blind eye that it is because they are smart, knowing full well that their rancid tribalism and nepotism is what gets them there.
 
It is better to ignore these charlatans. Why give them the attention they crave?
The point isn't to argue or to try to sway a fraud like JP. It is so his blue pilled audience hears red pill talking points, or better yet, simply see how silly and naive JP's talking points are when the words are simply changed to reveal what he is actually trying to say without the propaganda. Sadly JP still has a decent sized audience and there is a lot of potential future red pilled dissidents in his crowd of followers to bring on over to the good side. They are frustrated with the system but no one is giving them the answers they seek.
 
Looks like Keith Woods has JP in his sights. He is coming after him again and pointing out his hypocrisy. Thinking it over, this seems to be the best next move. Find the gate keepers and point out their hypocrisy to their large purple pilled audience. Their audience is looking for answers and deep down they know JP falls short but they don't exactly know how or why. They are ripe for red pilling.

 

Viktor Zeegelaar

Ostrich
Orthodox Inquirer
Word has reached me that the daughter and wife of Jordan Peterson now are openly Christian. Question is when Jordan follows himself. I have the feeling that he's been on the fence for a long time, possibly decades, but seeing him crying the other day with Jonathan Pageau when discussing the possibility that everything - the whole story - is actually real and the inevitable cornerstone that explains all history, reality and meaning, the center of the web that connects all the strands and dots, makes me think he's really close. I'd say with fierce conviction that he'll be openly Christian in 2 years.
 

Laner

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Word has reached me that the daughter and wife of Jordan Peterson now are openly Christian. Question is when Jordan follows himself. I have the feeling that he's been on the fence for a long time, possibly decades, but seeing him crying the other day with Jonathan Pageau when discussing the possibility that everything - the whole story - is actually real and the inevitable cornerstone that explains all history, reality and meaning, the center of the web that connects all the strands and dots, makes me think he's really close. I'd say with fierce conviction that he'll be openly Christian in 2 years.

I have listened to his daughter a bit lately, after pretty much trying to avoid her for the last couple years. But if you told me she is now Christian, I would actually believe you. There has been a measured change in her.

I thought his wife was Jewish? She almost died, and like many non practicing Jews, when faced with death they often find Christ.

Canada needs Peterson strong, healthy and with faith.
 

in.image.and.likeness

Pigeon
Orthodox Catechumen
Looks like Keith Woods has JP in his sights. He is coming after him again and pointing out his hypocrisy. Thinking it over, this seems to be the best next move. Find the gate keepers and point out their hypocrisy to their large purple pilled audience. Their audience is looking for answers and deep down they know JP falls short but they don't exactly know how or why. They are ripe for red pilling.

The thing is Peterson uses his words wisely indeed, so replying "I can't do it" to the J question actually is totally in the range of "I'm gonna say what I think..." - in this case he thinks that he can't do it - that's how tactical he is.
 
Top