The Jordan Peterson thread

Lawrence87

Kingfisher
Orthodox
I wonder on what basis does Peterson call anything evil? Would he call the jewish casting couch evil?
Well it's like evil is the mode of being with the maximum possible suffering in any possible iteration of reality or something like that.

Look, it's not so simple. I've actually spent 18 years intensely thinking about this every day. Evil is an approximation of the worst possible bad, you know? And it's like, well what do you mean by bad? Well badness is that which opposes good. And good is defined by the richest, most elite, most intelligent, biggest nosed people among us, and so evil, the worst possible evil imaginable is antisemitism and that's like wow man, you can't really get deeper than that!
 

paternos

Kingfisher
Catholic
Well it's like evil is the mode of being with the maximum possible suffering in any possible iteration of reality or something like that.

Look, it's not so simple. I've actually spent 18 years intensely thinking about this every day. Evil is an approximation of the worst possible bad, you know? And it's like, well what do you mean by bad? Well badness is that which opposes good. And good is defined by the richest, most elite, most intelligent, biggest nosed people among us, and so evil, the worst possible evil imaginable is antisemitism and that's like wow man, you can't really get deeper than that!
Maybe you intend it as joke, but this is so true. Sparks my thinking.

If criticizing the action and words of jews are the worst thing in the world (anti-semitism in popular culture), then indeed what Jews say and do is the ultimate good.

By controlling the narrative on the absolute evil, they control the narrative on the absolute good.

They don't often say: We are the absolute good in the world (publicly) but very very often say anti-semitism is the worst in the world.

By accepting anti-semitism as the worst in the world, you automatically (even if you don't realize it) accept that Jews are the absolute good. It's a form of trickery. But it influences you and will guide your actions.

It's like saying that "black" people are the victim, that makes "white" people the perpetrator. It's the same trickery of the worst.

Just that when we accept the reality of the devil, we learn about God.

The opposites always come together.

Your post makes clear I need to be keen on people telling me what is bad, because if I accept that, I automatically idolize the opposite. Interesting.
 

RonaldB

Sparrow
Catholic
Well it's like evil is the mode of being with the maximum possible suffering in any possible iteration of reality or something like that.

Look, it's not so simple. I've actually spent 18 years intensely thinking about this every day. Evil is an approximation of the worst possible bad, you know? And it's like, well what do you mean by bad? Well badness is that which opposes good. And good is defined by the richest, most elite, most intelligent, biggest nosed people among us, and so evil, the worst possible evil imaginable is antisemitism and that's like wow man, you can't really get deeper than that!

You forgot to mentioned that he says all of this while crying at the end.
 

Uzisuicide

Kingfisher
Protestant
Gold Member
This thread has now fully morphed into another Jew thread with Jordan Peterson used as a tool for attack. Not a good look for an Orthodox Christian site. There is a JQ thread by the way where alot of this stuff can go. I'm glad Roosh removed the other Christian categories from this site. Now it's all owned by my Orthodox brethren. Threads are taking a mean spirited direction lately.
 

Eusebius Erasmus

Ostrich
Orthodox
This thread has now fully morphed into another Jew thread with Jordan Peterson used as a tool for attack. Not a good look for an Orthodox Christian site. There is a JQ thread by the way where alot of this stuff can go. I'm glad Roosh removed the other Christian categories from this site. Now it's all owned by my Orthodox brethren. Threads are taking a mean spirited direction lately.

Do you think that it's good that Jordan Peterson defends Zionism, or that he is inconsistent on the IQ/race issue when it comes to Jews?
 

Sooth

Pelican
Gold Member
Jordan Peterson has caused me visceral repulsion since day one and feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone when people speak positively or enthusiastically about his work.

Get ready to be repulsed.

As many times as I've heard this same spiel from him, he is just straight up right in the below video.

Of course he's going to fumble the Logos stuff, but he dose actually smash some points home. And to be honest, he's better at doing this than Tate.

 

Lawrence87

Kingfisher
Orthodox
This thread has now fully morphed into another Jew thread with Jordan Peterson used as a tool for attack. Not a good look for an Orthodox Christian site. There is a JQ thread by the way where alot of this stuff can go. I'm glad Roosh removed the other Christian categories from this site. Now it's all owned by my Orthodox brethren. Threads are taking a mean spirited direction lately.

Why can't Jordan Peterson be mocked and criticised for his bias in favour of Zionist Jews? Whether you personally like Peterson, and disagree with this critique is irrelevant, why can't he be called out for this by people who take issue with it? Is there something about Jews that means they can't be criticised? Is it wrong to criticise them based on their influence in the financial system, the media, the fact that they are pushing the Globohomo agenda, that they push for abortion and so forth? Of course there are people of Jewish heritage who are not involved in this kind of stuff, there are Jews who are not Zionists and are critical of Israel and so forth, but when you look at the pushers of degeneracy, pornography, leftism, abortion, and so forth, you see an overwhelming representation of Jews. What is wrong with calling this out, and calling Peterson out for his backing of it? We mustn't do it because they are Jews?
 

Uzisuicide

Kingfisher
Protestant
Gold Member
Why can't Jordan Peterson be mocked and criticised for his bias in favour of Zionist Jews? Whether you personally like Peterson, and disagree with this critique is irrelevant, why can't he be called out for this by people who take issue with it? Is there something about Jews that means they can't be criticised? Is it wrong to criticise them based on their influence in the financial system, the media, the fact that they are pushing the Globohomo agenda, that they push for abortion and so forth? Of course there are people of Jewish heritage who are not involved in this kind of stuff, there are Jews who are not Zionists and are critical of Israel and so forth, but when you look at the pushers of degeneracy, pornography, leftism, abortion, and so forth, you see an overwhelming representation of Jews. What is wrong with calling this out, and calling Peterson out for his backing of it? We mustn't do it because they are Jews?
I never said Peterson can't be criticized and in general I don't think mocking people is appropriate. I just layed out in post after post why I thought the criticism leveled against Peterson was excessive, unfair and mean spirited. If you don't know my position by now, you're not gonna get it.
 

Lawrence87

Kingfisher
Orthodox
I never said Peterson can't be criticized and in general I don't think mocking people is appropriate. I just layed out in post after post why I thought the criticism leveled against Peterson was excessive, unfair and mean spirited. If you don't know my position by now, you're not gonna get it.

But you seem to take particular issue with the JQ based criticisms of him. Saying about how every thread here ends up being about Jews. I think its perfectly valid to criticise him for his pro-Zionist stance. He will not hesitate to lecture people about the crimes of the Soviets in the gulags and so forth, but Israeli soldiers taking pot shots at Palestinian kids and turfing them out of their homes is all good as far as he's concerned.

And like it or not people in the public sphere will get mocked for what they do and say. You're not being very clear on why the JQ stuff is a problem for you. It seems like you just don't like that people are willing to go there on this forum.
 

Roosh

Cardinal
Orthodox
This thread has now fully morphed into another Jew thread with Jordan Peterson used as a tool for attack. Not a good look for an Orthodox Christian site. There is a JQ thread by the way where alot of this stuff can go. I'm glad Roosh removed the other Christian categories from this site. Now it's all owned by my Orthodox brethren. Threads are taking a mean spirited direction lately.
In your opinion, is Jordan Peterson an enemy of Christ or a friend of Christ?
 

Coja Petrus Uscan

Crow
Orthodox Inquirer
Gold Member
I said I wasn't going to come back in here until Jordan was on the path of Christ, but given his recent diversion exceptions can be made.

@Uzisuicide - I'm posting my penultimate post in here, in part to show I am not wobbling down some of the roads you are mentioned, like saying that everyone is controlled opposition.

Points:

1) This is a Christian forum, where the direction is Christ-first. As noted in the below post, Jordan featured in a video in which he outlines how human evolved to create religion over thousands of years. He doesn't believe in Christianity. He believes in junkifying it with his philosophising, making himself God.

2) Jordan used to be very good in his replies to critics, engaging with them gracefully even if they were not so. The 200 Years Together video is a good example. It was a tough line of question giving the society you live in, and he followed his rule - tell the truth, or at least don't lie. I consider myself to be very good at reading between the lines of what people say. In the times he was asked the JQ, you can see that he knows there's at least something there. He has long been aggressive to radical leftist idealouges, but he was always tactful and cordial to the JQ.

3) Owing to being asked about the JQ so many times, he has a section on his website in which he debunks Jewish over achievement as "they have high IQs"; which isn't the issue that's really raised, it's what the Ashkenazi use their high IQs for. In another interview, I think with Murray or Eric Weinstein, he again stated that Jewish over achievement can be explained by high IQs, but refused to state the same with white or the general population and blacks. Black underachievement is just a mystery, which can be filled with endless made-up narratives by the radical left. He knows this is not true, again falling back to the - at least don't lie - just say - I can't do it.

4) He gave a ridiculous lecture, on the edge of tears, in which he said words to the effect of the fate of the world depends on the Jews. He also engaged with two fawning interviews, ignoring obvious questions and allowing Nettin Yoohoo to present bogus history unopposed. Further, he created two videos in which he pontificated from his Daily Wire sponsored ivory tower how the Christian church and Muslims should clean up their room. This from a man whose room is festooned in communist propaganda. What Christian would do that give the activities of the Soviets. A room so dirty he nearly killed himself in a drug overdose.

5) His crusade against online anonymity, even though he knows full well what a leftist society we live in, and that many people will face extreme repercussion for presenting even centrist views. Jordan is currently on defence as the borg is trying to remove his psychiatrist licence. I will give it him that he was brave in his 2015-17 period. He walked the tight rope. There have been many shots against him, but he's ended up in the off-mainstream media, where you can financially survive. Almost no one has the ability to do this. As an example, some game developer in Canada or the US recently lost her job because she was reported to her employer for following Ian Miles Cheong and Libs of Tik Tok. Peterson also supported the anonymity of socialist SlateStarCodex (Scott Alexander) when the failing New York Slimes threatened him with doxxing. It's not anonymity he really care about. It's what is being said anonymity, maybe most specifically what Jews use their high IQs to do.

6) His policing of his comment like an angry grandma, calling people rats.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that Peterson is not better than the mainstream of government schools and the red media. People saw that he was poking around in the right areas of Western cultural, moral and spiritual decline. But he is a liberal, and ultimately all he wants to do is roll liberalism back to the point that it wasn't more leftist. Leftism is the only successor as liberalism (see my post below). And Peterson has zero answers as to how you could even roll leftism back to liberalism. He believes in individualism and has no way to enforce his ideas. Liberalism only worked while in monarchical or aristocratic settings. That was the setting in which it could thrive, but being liberals, they decided those system had to go. They are the direct ideological ancestors of leftism and haven't been able to realise that yet. That don't want to realise that.

What we are arguing is that Peterson has become a ridiculous cardboard cutout. His shilling for Israel is indistinguishable from the work of Brian Stelter or Chris Cumou. It's the sort of stuff CNN were doing when Obama was elected. He is obviously going to be criticised.

And as for Jews. You find their hand behind every facet that Peterson was digging around. Yet he wants to completely bury any mention of that. What would he say, for example, about this?

1592184629454.jpg



If it was 4 years ago it would be, "I can't do it." Now it's "You're an evil rat." Allegedly genocidal rage is one of his giant worries. But he won't acknowledge that Jews are capable of it, never mind the primary culprits and ones who you can't say anything about.

The better question is - why not criticise Peterson? He's not leading anyone anywhere back but a few steps at which point we fall straight back into the same position we are now.

As for Christians being nice. Seems there is a place for not being nice. I doubt we'd know what Christianity is if some of it's most important adherents weren't nice. As the age of weak men wanes, it's inevitable we will become more accustomed to it.

When people attack people or things I like, I don't flinch. It does not effect me. To see that Peterson's followers are acting like women because he's been criticised shows me we're doing well.

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.
 

Uzisuicide

Kingfisher
Protestant
Gold Member
In your opinion, is Jordan Peterson an enemy of Christ or a friend of Christ?
Just a quick search...

enemy noun, plural en·e·mies.
1: a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent.

Cited above so you know my frame of reference. No, I don't believed Jordan Peterson is an enemy of Christ. Generally I view people who haven't accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior as lost.

I do know that Saul of Tarsus was an enemy of Christ at one point until he became the Apostle Paul. If Christ could lead Saul to the truth and use him to further his Kingdom , then perhaps there's hope for a wretch like me.
 

Lawrence87

Kingfisher
Orthodox
Just a quick search...

enemy noun, plural en·e·mies.
1: a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent.

Cited above so you know my frame of reference. No, I don't believed Jordan Peterson is an enemy of Christ. Generally I view people who haven't accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior as lost.

I do know that Saul of Tarsus was an enemy of Christ at one point until he became the Apostle Paul. If Christ could lead Saul to the truth and use him to further his Kingdom , then perhaps there's hope for a wretch like me.

He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.
- Luke 11:23

The main issue with Peterson for me, and this is above and beyond the JQ stuff is that he uses the image of Christ all the time. But if you watch him squirm any time he is asked whether he is a believer it's clear that there is something up. You ask a Christian if they believe in Christ their answer is short and simple, speak to an atheist and they also give a short and simple answer, even agnostic people will just say "I dunno".

From what I've seen Peterson simply uses the image of Christ as a pragmatic psychological archetype as some kind of lever to maximize ones own potential in this world. Like He is simply the symbol of the highest good in a metaphorical sense and is this something we can aim for to increase our status in this life.

I believe this is blasphemy because it takes the Son of God, our Lord and Saviour and makes Him merely some kind of useful idea rather than our Creator and Saviour. It's like some kind of prosperity Gospel but without even pretending to confess Christ.

Peterson is speaking a false Christ, he is the enemy of the True Christ. I'm not saying he cannot turn this around, but until he makes a confession of faith he is leading people up the garden path, and he would be better off not speaking about Christ. It also doesn't necessarily mean he is knowingly an enemy of Christ, like he deliberately set out to do this, but he needs to see this error, repent, and correct it.
 

Uzisuicide

Kingfisher
Protestant
Gold Member
@Uzisuicide - I'm posting my penultimate post in here, in part to show I am not wobbling down some of the roads you are mentioned, like saying that everyone is controlled opposition.

As for Christians being nice. Seems there is a place for not being nice. I doubt we'd know what Christianity is if some of it's most important adherents weren't nice. As the age of weak men wanes, it's inevitable we will become more accustomed to it.

When people attack people or things I like, I don't flinch. It does not effect me. To see that Peterson's followers are acting like women because he's been criticised shows me we're doing well.

First you direct your post at me by specifically calling me out above. Then you passive aggressively insinuate that I'm acting like a woman for defending Jordan Peterson. Then you incorrectly label me as one of his "followers." If this were not so then why call me out specifically at the beginning of your post? Second, me stating that "everyone is controlled opposition" is me being facetious and is a going joke over multiple threads.

You've stated above "As for Christians being nice. Seems there is a place for not being nice." And after reading comments posted in some threads here recently, I seem to have found it.
When people attack those that I like I stick up for them. Especially when I deem it as unfair.

As for your other points please see my earlier post. I'm just discussing Jew issues in a Jordan Peterson thread.
 

Uzisuicide

Kingfisher
Protestant
Gold Member
He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.
- Luke 11:23

Does that include Saul of Tarsus? Thankfully Christ set out a path for us to redeem ourselves through him. We were all lost at some point. And yes, there is even hope for the 'one step above Hitler' Jordan Peterson. :)
 
Top