The Jordan Peterson Question

[Wuzzums]

Let me put a series of events in chronological order:

- Jordan Peterson (JP) worked on UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Sustainable Development circa 2013 (source) 

- JP wrote the underlying narrative

- The document JP worked on states: "The universal human rights and fundamental freedoms of migrants must be respected. These migrants make a positive economic contribution to their host countries, by building up their labour force." (source see page 18 under International Migration)

- In 2015 the migrant crisis begins

- Circa 2016 huge right-wing backlash in most European countries, most prominently the steady rise of the Alt-Right, which culminates in the election of Donald Trump who ran on an overt anti-migration agenda

- Around the same time JP gets into his whole gender pronouns issue which due to the MSM's attention has gotten him world-wide fame

- JP is seen as a hero of the right though he never explicitly called himself right-wing nor left-wing

- The tension between the Left and Right grow ever more strongly

- Attacks by the Left on Peterson include his association with right-wing movements which, again, he never explicitly renounced

- In several talks and Patreon Q&A vids he's asked the JQ and his relationship to the Alt-Right and avoids answering both questions by just laughing them off as silly; This has 2 effects (or maybe 2 purposes): (a) avoiding the JQ si a dog whistle for the Alt-Right types who think Peterson is not answering because he doesn't want to indite himself (in their words "he's not showing his true power level"), and (b) avoiding associating himself with right-wing movements is the same dog whistle, but in reverse, for the leftist audience. The result is an exponential growth of his audience while towing a very fine line.

- In 2017 JP DEPLATFORMS Faith Goldy, a notable right-wing Christian journalist, because she was interviewed on a right-wing podcast. The notable aspect of this event is that the speech she was invited to talk at was called "Stifling of Free Speech on University Campuses", JP was the one that requested she was thrown out, JP was the one that spun this hypocrisy as "irony", JP was the one that later on spun on Joe Rogan (and several other talks) Faith Goldy's interview as she being the one which was doing the interviewing.

- In 2018: JP became a mainstream media figurehead with his appearance on Bill Maher, JP allied himself with Ben Shapiro the notorious neocon and Never-Trumper, and JP started attacking the Alt-Right directly at most of his events

 

Now let's talk about Elizabeth Holmes, the woman nicknamed the "female Steve Jobs". She looked the part (turtleneck included), she talked like an entrepreneur, she spoke at all the right events and to all the right people, she said all the right things, and she has all the right opinions. She was just the perfect woman for the perfect "current year". Her company was evaluated at 9 BILLION $. Everybody wanted to believe in her. And overnight she was ousted as a fraud and all her cards came crumbling down.

 

So finally my question is:

Is Jordan Peterson the hero we want? Is he saying things we want to hear or need to hear? Are his rugs really worth 2000$ or are they overpriced pieces of new-age crap?

Did we play ourselves, yay or nay?

[Jsbrads]

He does openly say he is the alt right.

[sweathog1]

Well, just got booted off of cbc with 14000 likes for the third time under differing aliases,tweeter,you tube,goggle etc., ask for r-conformation of psw (god help us they are in cahoots.) I am not much of a progressive . Turns  out JP  supports what I said a few years ago on child rearing., have not been back here since.However my kids are all grown doing well with their own families.

I support Jordan Peterson 99.8% all of the time and yes I watch all of them. 

 

[ofd]

Quote

Is Jordan Peterson the hero we want?

He may be for alt light people, young men looking for a father figure and people with messy rooms. However, he is not willing to come up with clear answers when they don't suit him, like "Are you a Christian?" let alone questions where one answer has social stigma connected with it. The one good thing about JP, Sargon, Rubin et al is that they serve as a gateway to people who are more serious and more honest like JF Gariepy or Alternative Hypothesis.

[Dr. Dealgood]

Is Jordan Peterson the hero we want? Is he saying things we want to hear or need to hear? Are his rugs really worth...

First off who is "we"? I think you mean 'you and I'... and your telling me that you have doubts about him. You make it sound like he was personally responsible for the immigration crisis into Europe and North America. That's pretty impressive for a U of T psych professor...

Is he saying things YOU want to hear? Apparently not. I'm going to go out on a limb and will suggest that he neither seeks nor cares for your approval. This being a free society he will talk about whatever he wants to talk about. The only choice you have is to be his audience or not.

I judge people by their actions and the content of their speech. He so exquisitely handed Cathy Newman her ass during his interview with her that I have listened to it several times to learn how. It's possible, that just maybe Jordan Peterson has something to teach the rest of us... how to deal with feminist sophistries in public discourse.

Your comment about his rugs has shades of the Nellie Bowles' NYT hit piece on JP, 'Custodian of the Patriarchy'. Wherein she criticizes him for his choice in artwork and his bedspread.  Are you trying to 'women-splain' him to us? I don't care what his freaking rugs, car or kitchen dishware cost him! Bringing that up has nothing to do with content of his message and is childish.

[Kohlrak]

11 hours ago, ofd said:

He may be for alt light people, young men looking for a father figure and people with messy rooms. However, he is not willing to come up with clear answers when they don't suit him, like "Are you a Christian?" let alone questions where one answer has social stigma connected with it. The one good thing about JP, Sargon, Rubin et al is that they serve as a gateway to people who are more serious and more honest like JF Gariepy or Alternative Hypothesis.

I think JP's religion is important in regards to his awesome bible lecture series. I can't see his religious views really being important beyond that, really. He doesn't say whether or not he's a believer (he very much seems not to be), but he is proposing a belief in biblical values without necessitating the belief in God Himself, but instead proposing that God may be the wisdom of the ancients. As a Christian, i'm honored by this attempt. He's standing up for western values, Christian values, without putting the rationality of God on the table like a certain philosopher who keeps telling christians to move on from the question, despite making his own comments all the time.

[RichardY]

Personally I think J Peterson is disliked/seen as a threat, because he buries the idea of god in mythos. As opposed to a more manifest God. I think that's hard to take if you've structured your being around a devotion to the diety. Especially if you're highly conscientious which I believe people like Vox Day and Alex Jones are.
 

In terms of heroes. I think an Antihero would be awesome, Death Wish or Taxi Driver style.

[RichardY]

No Heroes. Antiheroes would be awesome. In case my examples were disconcerting.

[actanonverba]

Just have one problem with your claims. It seems the source of this is coming form RED ICE TV. They make a very dramatic and impelling argument as to whether we should consider J.P. a good guy or a bad guy as well as questioning his loyalties and intentions. I proof read the U.N. documents, concentrating on mostly where I would find any mention of or even see J.P.. So far nothing, nada, zero, oh and the 27 panel members includes many scholars and intellectuals from around the world plus the likes of John Podesta (HRC Campaign Manager & Pedophile Art collectors brother Tony Podesta), but not J.P.. If I am wrong please point me to the page of the U.N. document I might have missed. 

Wow, after doing some more research, I am staring to think this topic deserves an entire segment by Stephan M.. While doing a limited search on Google, with barely using a head line TAG. It is interesting that Google list four of the most notorious and misinformation FAKE NEWS Words Press and Sites all claiming the same thing. Godlike Productions, Zig Forums, Follow Me Down The Rabbit Hole and Red Ice TV "The Future Is The Past". LMAO sounds like Q psyop "Past Proves Present". Anyways what a mind fart for the laymen. I am starting to notice just how far Obama's $611 Billion budget for NDAA & Revision of the Smith Mundit Act went towards "propagating propaganda purposely". Say that ten times fast..

[actanonverba]

 

[actanonverba]

Some of us actually read documents and or analyze topics just as I hope others do as well, just not as often as we could all hope for. Faith Goldy did make a very bad decision in the way she handled her interview with Daily Stormer. Just because we all agree on similar issues does nor mean we are coming from the same same place culturally. She should have just taken the journalistic high road instead of being buddy buddy with them.  As fare is your claim leading to J.P. all on his lone some blocked Goldy. Well it was actually an entire panel of Free Speech and Thinking Professors that made a hard deliberation of the matter before weighing out the outcome.   

As far as J.P. claiming to be on a U.N. advisory panel in 2013, I cant blame him for that. He comes from an intellectual tenure, I would expect the U.N. to try and get a feel for him. I have read most U.N. documents and truthfully it all sounds great, but so does the Communist Manifesto that I also have read and we all know the double speak behind both of them. Again there I have not seen any proof J.P. wrote that comment of revision for the U.N. document/ It comes across like the tactic used by the seditious Left, by claiming to look here and count on their audience to be to lazy or indoctrinated to.    

With all that said, I have reservations with J.P. and listing, watching closely. As of now his message is exposing are common enemy which is Marxism and Globalism. He is introducing and making Philosophy cool again to younger folks. As well as teaching those of different sexual orientation to not be the victim the left is pushing them into being.

At one point quite a long time ago and many videos, articles and podcasts later I did not completely trust Stephan M..

   

[Donnadogsoth]

[RichardY]

I think freedom of speech is fine, as long as you have freedom of association. Otherwise you have no option but to put up with what's said, which maybe untrue and sophistry. Which maybe fine if you're a leftist and take an unconsious statistical-status approach to oblivion. In war you have no freedom of association.

Don't tend to trust anyone, though I trust Stefan more than anyone, except myself. Can't really fault him for the most part, actions speak louder than words and by publically supporting Trump and Tommy, hard to find fault. By extension tend to trust Tom Woods, Lauren Southern etc. I think "Speaking truth to power" is a poor phrase, especially if "power" already knew or knows the truth and chose to reject it. Kind like what Jordan Peterson says about initally lying and then becominng unconscious of it. Read that Noam Chomsky said something similar. Can't see why not to cherry pick ideas. Was annoyed about "Why I was wrong about Brexit" especially when Stefan did not live or speak to anyone in the areas most effected by immigration.

Nationalists can be awesome unsung heroes, but I find they're prone to infighting,division, betrayal and paranoia. But with good reason. Though they are more inclined to get things done, at least before they get utterly destroyed by the power that be. Although Tommy did a lot, he had support amoung the working class community initally, before he went completely independent, can hardly imagine that strength to stand alone. It was the BNP that did most of the investigation into the "grooming gangs" & "MP Expenses scandal" partly for political gains, they had the funding and people. 

Having said that always curious what better sources of truth there might be? I guess other than actually being at some of places and issues talked about can't do much better than FDR.

What I like about Jordan Peterson is. Here are the recurrent themes and here is this and this source. Here's what I think but, draw your own conclusion. The guy is prolific, I think it would be unfair to say he has allies in the same way the alt right says. Just because he was on Ben Shapiro or Joe Rogan (Neither of which I trust) show does not make him an ally of his. If Jordan Peterson provided a conduit to a wealth of information, why not just accept that, draw your own conclusions.

Lot of second hand sources simialar to Stefans, but they lack the intiative and philosophical content imho although they are smoother on the ears and eyes, have more views and are shorter.