You will know him by his enemies

Jordan Peterson is one of the most relentless and effective enemies of the left. Yet he is frequently criticised by those who are supposedly on his own side. If you are in any doubt about which side he is on, here is the Canadian State Media going after him, which is identical to our ABC in being an exactly perfect measure of who is a genuine enemy of the left.

*Premiering on CBC Docs POV Fri. Nov. 2 at 9pm EST then streaming in Canada at cbc.ca/watch*

SHUT HIM DOWN: The Rise of Jordan Peterson has been in the making for the last two years. The feature doc is a behind-the-scenes look at Professor Jordan Peterson as he navigates the biggest controversy of his career. This is the official trailer which illustrates the explosion of polarized opinions that surround his meteoric rise to global fame.

Polarised as in they are a bunch of Marxist frauds and he is opposed to their lies and deceit. The BBC thought they had shot him to pieces and are still amazed how his influence has grown.

This entry was posted in Conservative politics, Media. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to You will know him by his enemies

  1. Oh come on.

    Peterson has put his stuff out there. It is incredible stuff. It’s impacting. But he is at a point where he needs to take a break. Actually, he should have taken a break six months ago and let his message reverberate without him. Be a bit of an enigma. Turn up at unexpected moments, if he is going to turn up. Instead, he is *everywhere* trying to be everything to everyone while hammering home the same points. He’s overexposed. It’s like he’s perpetually trying to get elected, but there is no Election Day and so the electioneering never ends – and his manifesto is getting stale. I’m not convinced this is the best strategy in the longer term. I think he needs to step back for a year or two, let his star fade somewhat, and then make a dazzling comeback with new material.

  2. NB

    Great.
    Next let’s have a doco called ‘Shut her down’ about Hillary.
    ‘Shut him down – the sequel’ about Justin T.

  3. AussieMAGA

    libertards and leftists both marginalise real dissidents and praise those acceptable to the Establishment and mainstream culture. Peterson is no exception. And only bugmen buy into the kosher ‘intellectual dark web’.

    this is amongst many reasons why libertards are cucks. discuss.

  4. Sunni Bakchat

    The fact the left would title a documentary “Shut Him Down” and the CBC broadcast it, shows the entire “Bureactivist” or “Activista” movement are now at the point of self-parody. They’re all in the Fake House. Bye Bye “Marcusistan”.
    Perhaps the title “Shut us down” would be more apt?

  5. egg_

    SHUT HIM DOWN?

    Will likely only increase his popularity amongst the non-Left.

    #Winning!

  6. egg_

    “Bureactivist”

    When the Green-Left are in power, viz TheirABC and the “bully pulpit”.

  7. Senile Old Guy

    Sorry. Jordan Peterson goes on stage and cries. After nothing. He is no hero. And most of his opinions seem left wing.

  8. The desperation of the Left is becoming so bad that it’s backfiring on them at every level.

    Blaming Trump for the crazy fake bomb mailer, especially when the Democrats have been extolling, supporting or ignoring violence by their own people, including senators, is making people aware of what’s going on.

    I was just thinking yesterday about the US Civil War where the north fought the south to get rid of slavery. The Democrats were the slavers and nothing has changed, only the location. It’s the east and west coast that are now the Democrat slave states, keeping black in poverty by reinforcing their victimhood and maintaining actual slaves by using Hispanics as dirt cheap labour.

    The conditions for the slaves may be slightly different from those civil war days, but the intent and outcome is exactly the same. Who are the plantation owners? The technology giants, the movie industry, the globalists, the media and so on. Nothing has really changed, only the facade.

  9. egg_

    he should have taken a break six months ago and let his message reverberate without him.

    This free publicity might be a chance for him to put his feet up.

  10. iain russell

    OzMAGA, double plus good!

  11. Entropy

    Make hay while the sun shines etc.
    When the public move on he will have earned his crust.

  12. Old School Conservative

    Senile Old Guy
    #2851288, posted on October 29, 2018 at 6:51 am
    Sorry. Jordan Peterson goes on stage and cries. After nothing. He is no hero. And most of his opinions seem left wing.

    His opinions seem very conservative to me:
    No use of gender free pronouns.
    There is no gender pay gap.
    Masculinity/manliness is a virtue.
    Opposes the outlawing of discrimination based on gender.
    Has a strong belief in the value of Christianity and the message of the bible.
    Values the differences between men and women.

    However I agree we should not see him as a fault-free hero.

  13. Iampeter

    Polarised as in they are a bunch of Marxist frauds and he is opposed to their lies and deceit.

    That would be quiet a feat, since Peterson IS a Marxist fraud.
    Only much, much more confused than a normal Marxist.
    As with the brainless support for Trump, so with Petersons drones, it paints a picture of total intellectual bankruptcy and desperation within the conservative movement.

  14. Sweden is lost. Soon Canada will be lost.

  15. Old School Conservative

    Thanks for the great start to my day Iampeter.
    Your post was funnier than The Hangover clips posted last night.

  16. Confused Old Misfit

    Since he puts himself forward as the “fount of all knowledge” Iampeter needs to write a book and go on a speaking tour. His pearls are surely cast before swine in this milieu.

  17. it paints a picture of total intellectual bankruptcy and desperation within the conservative movement

    A surprisingly accurate picture, since “conservatives” have signally failed to conserve anything.

  18. Peterson has repeatedly said that he is not conservative or right wing. He’s against post-modernism but that doesn’t make him right wing. By his own report, he has “consulted for the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Sustainable Development”, which would be this report: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/untaskteam_undf/HLP%20P2015%20Report.pdf

    He’s a “moderate” left winger and a committed globalist. He wants to fix the left, not destroy it.

  19. Senile Old Guy

    He’s a “moderate” left winger and a committed globalist. He wants to fix the left, not destroy it.

    Correct and nicely put.

  20. Marcus

    Peterson has repeatedly said that he is not conservative or right wing.

    Thanks. I was just about to ask whether he’d ever actually presented himself as a conservative, but since he apparently hasn’t any criticism that he’s no true conservative is pretty hollow.

  21. Iampeter

    A surprisingly accurate picture, since “conservatives” have signally failed to conserve anything.

    Yea but what should be conserved and why?
    Conservatives don’t know, as they are just religious/traditionalist collectivists (and that means leftists).
    Their alternative ideas to Marxism are basically Marxism, but with extra steps and more Jesus.

  22. Craig Mc

    I wouldn’t say he’s on the side of the right as opposed to the left.

    More he’s on the side of personal responsibility and individual rights – causes dear to libertarians, and most of the time, conservatives. Of course, the left can’t abide those causes.

    If he has any other political barrows, he doesn’t seem to push them in public.

  23. Driftforge

    Controlled opposition must be opposed to be effective. The process of building this generation’s conservative position is underway as we watch. Of course, it conserves only that which the last cycle didn’t manage to cede.

    Conservatism doesn’t conserve. That is it’s point. By definition it cannot recover lost ground, nor does it have any interest in doing so.

  24. Iampeter

    Peterson has repeatedly said that he is not conservative or right wing. He’s against post-modernism but that doesn’t make him right wing.

    Keep in mind that Peterson will say anything and nothing. It’s pure gibberish and totally post-modernist, even if he says otherwise.
    Peterson is the guy who gets up on stage, saying he is on the side of individualism and then talks about how individuals need to tale “responsibility” for something greater than themselves or the state will collapse. This is the kind of crap you expect to hear from Marxists.
    He’ll get up on stage and claim he’s not an enemy of reason and then talk about how reason can’t answer everything.
    He’ll get up on stage and say he’s against post-modernism and then go on a thirty minute, stream of consciousness, post-modernist spiel, about archetypes or whatever.
    He’s the the guy who refuses to acknowledge the existence of facts, making constructive conversation impossible.
    He’s also the guy that’s mentioned off-hand, a few times on his podcasts, that people were “doing fine” during the dark ages.
    He is an evil, ignorant collectivist and a completely disintegrated thinker, that should be languishing in obscurity where he belongs. Instead he happened to accidently run afoul of the progressive SJW’s and so has accidently being catapulted to fame and stardom by the even more clueless, conservative SJW’s, for doing so.
    It’s Milo 2.0.
    Well, those few of us who actually know how to think for ourselves are pointing out that this Emperor has no clothes.

  25. manalive

    In so far as he outrages feminists, SJWs, statists and the Left in general Jordan Peterson must be doing something right but having watched a few of his YouTube videos, his appeal must go over my head.
    Maybe it’s my age, Monty Python’s Meaning of Life is more entertaining, maybe Shakespeare’s Macbeth put it best as in “… to-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow … creeps in this petty pace …” etc. — who knows?

  26. JohnA

    Iampeter #2851314, posted on October 29, 2018, at 8:47 am

    Polarised as in they are a bunch of Marxist frauds and he is opposed to their lies and deceit.

    That would be quiet a feat since Peterson IS a Marxist fraud.
    Only much, much more confused than a normal Marxist.
    As with the brainless support for Trump, so with Peterson’s drones, it paints a picture of total intellectual bankruptcy and desperation within the conservative movement.

    Not necessarily confused or at least not any more than the common or garden variety totalitarian.

    But he is admitting the existence of internal contradictions inherent in leftist/Marxist/totalitarian thinking – and facing up to them.

    As Cato above said, he’s trying to fix the left. But at some point, he will discover that it can’t be fixed.

  27. JohnA

    Iampeter #2851384, posted on October 29, 2018, at 10:54 am

    A surprisingly accurate picture, since “conservatives” have signally failed to conserve anything.

    Yea but what should be conserved and why?
    Conservatives don’t know, as they are just religious/traditionalist collectivists (and that means leftists).
    Their alternative ideas to Marxism are basically Marxism, but with extra steps and more Jesus.

    LOL!! You have absolutely no clue, have you?

    Marxism is a heresy of the Christian faith, with no God and an inadequate grasp of human nature. Consequently, Marxist economics is fundamentally flawed.

    Christianity is the true antidote to Marxism and all forms of totalitarianism.

    But as Chesterton said (IIRC) Christianity has not been tried and found wanting – it has been considered too difficult and rarely tried at all.

  28. Their alternative ideas to Marxism are basically Marxism, but with extra steps and more Jesus.

    Quite so, which may be why the left has enjoyed so much success over the last 50 years or so. The supposed “opposition” was nothing of the sort.

    (Furthermore, Carthage must be destroyed)

  29. Mitch M.

    Peterson needs to learn a lesson from other prominent psychologists like Kaufman and Pinker. They build a narrative by attention to the relevant research which allows them to create new stories rather than repeating the same tired old stuff. Over the weekend I read an article by Kaufman and the narrative was littered with references. Peterson just waffles on with the same old ideas. His attempts to back peddle on his obvious political leanings is very strange and would be unnecessary if he built narratives from research rather than Jungian clap trap and other mythological themes.

  30. Mitch M.

    Here’s another example I just read of where Peterson should be heading …

    Blueprint by Robert Plomin review – how DNA dictates who we are

    The author of this review doesn’t like the implications of Plomin’s latest work. Tough luck because whether we like it or not genetics plays a major role in our lives and nothing will ever change that. Which is a shame because the author, Steve Mithen, is an excellent scientist in his own field.

  31. Iampeter

    Christianity is the true antidote to Marxism and all forms of totalitarianism.

    Well, this is the sort of thinking that has destroyed the conservative movement and explains why they can’t come up with any alternative ideas to the left.
    Christianity isn’t a cure to Marxism (that’s a laughable suggestion) it IS Marxism.
    It was Christianity that first mainstreamed altruism in the West, which would find its logical conclusion in the death camps and gulags of the 20th century.
    It was Christianity that taught the purpose of your life is to sacrifice for others, to give everything away, to never turn away the needy, that an ideal society is one where all things are in common and you take as needed (sound familiar?), etc.
    The inability to join the dots between causes (Christian altruist teaching) and consequences (Marxism, fascism, etc.) is a symptom of that intellectual bankruptcy I mentioned earlier.
    Until you can reject Christianity, you can’t reject Marxism.

  32. Up The Workers!

    Those two great Socialists of the 20th century, Adolf Hitler and Joe Stalin, would be proud of the totalitarian Leftard bigots they have bequeathed to the world today.

    Between the Naziism and Communism, they have so far managed to murder something like 140 million people as “collateral damage” – but who’s counting….most of those lives were only peasants anyway.

  33. The BigBlueCat

    @Iampeter & @Cato … you do realise that Christianity is a religious ideology and about a relationship with a personal saviour God, whereas Marxism is an economic-socio-political ideology don’t you?

    But to take you to task a bit:

    Christianity doesn’t teach to give everything away (or to have it taken by Marxists) – it teaches to be generous. Christianity isn’t Marxism and can’t be Marxism – Marx stole some ideas from Christianity, but Marxism just isn’t Christian and in fact denies Christ, God and religion (apart from religion generally being the opiate of the masses). Christianity in and of itself does not foment actual, violent, political or economic revolution as did Marx and his adherents. That you might point to some Christians who have is not particularly relevant without full context.

    Following Christ also does not lead to death camps and gulags as you claim – Iampeter said “It was Christianity that first mainstreamed altruism in the West, which would find its logical conclusion in the death camps and gulags of the 20th century.” No, it was Socialist totalitarianism and the rejection of Christian values that led to this.

    You could argue that Capitalist bosses and political leaders who reject generosity and altruism as a principle are also to blame for the rise of Marxism and proletariat-led revolution. Though in the end, it was the Marxist leaders themselves who benefited from their altruism, not the people. Where has “true socialism” ever been successful? Socialism is all about political and economic power – Christianity isn’t, it’s about relationship.

    Unless you can accept following Christ as a vibrant, active and beneficial worldview, you run a real risk of adopting Marxism. Christians aren’t about taking (like Marxists are) – they are about free will, generosity and giving (usually). As someone once said, “if you’re not a socialist at 20 you’ve got no heart, if you’re still one at 40 you’ve got no head.”. Many Christians will argue that if you have heart and a head, follow Christ. Just saying …

  34. Iampeter

    The thing is BBcAt, you’ve ignored what I said and are ignoring what Christianity actually is, putting forward the post-enlightenment views that non-serious Christians spout today, in order to remain relevant in a world that has no need for mysticism. Not that it ever did.

    Christianity is not about “a relationship with a personal savior God”, whatever that means, nor is it ” vibrant, active and beneficial worldview”. Christianity is the worship of suffering, sacrifice and death for the sins of others. It’s teachings and values are altruism.
    So, if Christianity is your values, then death camps and gulags are going to be the result when taken to its logical conclusion. We’re just lucky that neither you, nor most Christians today, neither understand nor take your religion seriously, or the Western world would look just like the Middle East.

    Christianity cannot be reconciled with rights protecting government and capitalism, and trying to do so has thoroughly destroyed conservatism as a political movement.

  35. The BigBlueCat

    @Iampeter … ahh, you’re an atheist. Not everyone is, you know. What Christianity actually is, by definition, is what I have said, and not what you might wish it to be. I suggest you expand your knowledge a bit and read up on what being a Christian means – C.S. Lewis is a good place to start (Mere Christianity).

    Gulag and death camps might be the result of a worldview that eschews personal freedom, which Christianity certainly is not. But lest we forget that it was the many Christians (with many others) in the West who stood up against Nazism and Communism and calling them out for the murderous cowards those practitioners were. If your claim is that Christians will become the victims of totalitarian regimes, rather than the instigators of gulags and death camps, well that may well be an outcome inflicted upon Christians but not the intent of Christianity itself – Christians have frequently been opposed by those with a totalitarian bent and Christians have fought back (as they should).

    Christianity can most certainly be reconciled with rights protecting government and capitalism – your statement saying otherwise is incoherent to the point where I’d say you just made that up or copied it from somewhere else. The basic tenets of Christianity revolve around the 10 Commandments (remember Thou shalt not steal, murder, covet, etc?). And also The Golden Rule (does “Do unto others as you would have done unto you” ring a bell?). Or maybe the parable of the Good Samaritan? Or many other parables that speak to relationship and acts of kindness and responsibility? Instructions about rendering unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s? Serious Christians take these seriously. These are objectively moral tenets that you simply dismiss because you are ignorant of what it means to be Christian and are pushing an anti-Christian, godless idea.

    Also, Christianity is not the “worship of suffering, sacrifice and death for the sins of others” as you put it, but of the One who was subjected to that as a substitute for those who deserve punishment. It’s called Atonement. Your Strawman argument is without merit. It certainly doesn’t explain altruism in action (You’ve probably heard of the Salvation Army, St Vincent de Paul Society, Christians Against Poverty, and many other Christian organisations dedicated to alleviating suffering and poverty). But I guess in your mind this is just a diversion …..

    I don’t know where you get your information from (probably Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Krauss and others), but it ain’t from the Christian faith. How about you step into a mainline Christian church and ask actual questions, and broaden your research.

    The so-called failure of Conservatism in politics has more to do with people without a strong moral base being attracted to progressivism because it has an apparent materially-based payback to them based on spending other people’s money (eg. legislated income redistribution based on misconceptions of justice and fairness, the 1%, etc) and doing all sorts of things that in past times were socially unacceptable (for various reasons). I’m all for government welfare where welfare is really needed, but as you know, progressivism has many, many unintended consequences. Venezuela anyone???? Identity politics maybe???? A $223k grant researching post orientalist arts in the Strait of Gibraltar??? Hhhhmmmm ….

  36. Iampeter

    Being an atheist isn’t what’s important, but rather being an advocate of reason.
    I think it’s you that needs to actually learn what Christianity is about instead of wishing it was something it isn’t.

    Look, here’s the usual set of scripture quotes I use in these kinds of discussions:

    Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. Whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death. (Leviticus 24:16)

    If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,” . . . you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. (Deuteronomy 13:6–9)

    “I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land,” says God through Moses (Deuteronomy 15:11).
    “Woe unto those who . . . turn aside the needy,” warns God through Isaiah (Isaiah 10:1–2).
    “Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you . . . do not demand it back”—“Sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor”—“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”—says Jesus (Luke 6:30 and 18:22; Matthew 19:24).

    This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. (Romans 13:1–7)

    “Do nothing from selfishness . . . but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves” (Philippians 2:3).
    “Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor” (1 Corinthians 10:24).
    “Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2).
    “Share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God” (Hebrews 13:16).

    The congregation of believers was one in heart and soul. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they owned.

    There were no needy ones among them, because those who owned lands or houses would sell their property, bring the proceeds from the sales, 35and lay them at the apostles’ feet for distribution to anyone as he had need.

    If you still haven’t joined the dots, those last few quotes would later become the communist saying of “from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs”.
    And I can keep going and going…the Bible is basically an early version of the communist manifesto.
    Not to mention the holiest symbol in Christianity is an innocent man suffering and dying as horribly as possible for the sins of others. It doesn’t get anymore evil and death-worship-y than that.

    THIS is why I and any honest person, conclude that Christianity, quite obviously, is incompatible with rights protecting government and capitalism or freedom, even theoretically.

    It is the religious version and precursor to Marxism and Fascism.

  37. The BigBlueCat

    @Iampeter

    Some reading for you … this and this and this.

    Of course there is a lot more (both for and against) your proposition. And that some Christian groups (especially in China) were friendly to Mao and his economic policies despite major oppression of Chrsitians. But your conclusions that a) Christianity is incompatible with rights protecting government and capitalism or freedom, and b) that Christianity is a religious version and precursor to Marxism and Fascism are false. Believe them if you want – most people don’t.

    The only “relationship” between Christianity and Marxism is that Marx despised Christianity because of its support for capitalism (BTW – Marx was impressed by capitalism and saw it as a necessary stepping stone for the progression of man). But for Christianity to move to Marxism, it will have to deny Christ and deny the very means (capitalism, freedom, liberty, personal property, government of the people, etc) by which they can best alleviate suffering, poverty, disease, etc – something that is not on the table for any serious Christian.

    As to your bible quotes (probably cherry-picked for you by others), you fail to understand the differences between old and new covenants, and descriptive versus prescriptive texts. Some of the versus are actually positive and beneficial to society generally and are widely accepted as living a good life (eg Philippians 2:3, 1 Corinthians 10:24, Galatians 6:2) The verses from The Acts you cite (the last 2) are a description of what people did because of the position they were in, not as prescription for the future – clearly most Christians don’t live that way.

    And you seriously misunderstand and mischaracterise the concept of atonement – Christ’s death on the Cross as a remission for the sin of others (even yours). Christians don’t worship death, but acknowledge his death as the death due them and worship Christ as their saviour. Evil men caused his death, but his death also served another, higher purpose. Your comment is just a regurgitation of Dawkins – unoriginal and wrong.

    Never read a Bible verse on it’s own – you need to read around it to gather context. Off to bible college for you! I won’t be relying on your textual criticism of a religious text relating to a deity you deny even exists.

    You can have the last word if you want ….

  38. Iampeter

    Yea, so you’re not connecting the dots between the ideas and their consequences.
    Even your own quotes support my argument, about how Marxist Christian teachings are, but you don’t get it.
    In a nutshell: Christianity teaches altruism and altruism is the basis for Marxism, Fascism and collectivism in general. It is not and will never be the basis for capitalism.

    Your quotes, for example Philippians 2:3 “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves”, are the sorts of things Marxists would say.

    Capitalists are egoists. Capitalists would say you SHOULD do things out of selfish ambition and that to do so is morally GOOD.

    To be a capitalist, requires a total rejection of the altruistic, self-sacrificial, teachings of Christianity. Until you do so, you are just supporting Marxism, regardless how hard you try to pretend otherwise.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.