The Limits of Peterson By John Steele

     Some insightful comments by martial arts/cultural dissent James LaFond who runs a pretty much adult site, but there are still many good things to be distilled for less robust folk. Like this comment on the social significance of Jordan Peterson:

“Sir, here is a recent link sent by Riley, which I think demonstrates the usefulness of shills like Peterson and Molynuex, creatures who seem like ghosts discussing the viability of the human soul they are a mere caricature of, but nevertheless serve as a potential gateway from the rationalized feminine into the rational male and thence hopefully to the masculine—though both will always balk at a purely masculine perspective. I see them as Andy prototypes for the future, scrubbed of testosterone and estrogen and used as counselors to the crazed remnants of insipid humanity. Your case is well enough stated that I need not add to it and will only restate that the Peterson Bot's reasoning mechanics have provided me with useful thought exercises, namely in finding my point of transcendent moral departure from his mechanistic doctrine of human ascendency to godhood. A good friend of mine has mentioned how the man's mere gnomish voice is enough to dispel any notion that he represents the masculine in any case beyond considering it as a reference for certain social mechanics.”

     This stirred up my animal spirits enough to visit the link on that page, where PJ Media put the case that Peterson is merely conducting a superficial critique of selected aspects of the political correctness regime, to appeal to young men who are hurting and wounded by this new regime.

“I believe that his enormous and sudden popularity stems from his use of the language of therapy to attack the symptoms of a therapeutic society. His 2018 bestseller Twelve Rules for Life is a self-help book, not a work of politics, philosophy, or cultural criticism. Therein, I think, lies Dr. Peterson's great appeal. The four-fifths of Americans who think that PC has gone too far do not want to undo the great cultural transformation of the past half-century, which has placed self-esteem at the center of human concerns at the expense of traditional virtues. We no longer wish to do what is good and upright in the eyes of God; who does this God think He is, sitting in judgment over us? We want to be our own little gods and make ourselves into whatever we would like to be. We have, as Justice Kennedy wrote in the Obergefell decision, a right "to define and express [our] identity."

That is the purpose of therapy, which asserts that healing comes from within, that man is the measure of all things, and our own sense of self-esteem and well-being is the gauge against which our behavior must be measured. Of course, there are limits to our ability to define and express an identity. We may identify as an octopus and drown, or identify as a bullfinch and plummet to our deaths from a height. The progressives haven't yet rallied to the cause of octopus-and-bullfinch identifiers, but they have done something equally ridiculous, namely to attempt to outlaw the second most pronounced differentiation in nature, namely male vs. female (the most pronounced is alive or dead). That does a horrible disservice to the tiny minority of people who cannot rid themselves of the belief that they were born into the wrong gender. Sufferers from gender dysphoria believe more fervently than anyone in the absolute nature of gender difference, but they want to be on the other side of the gender divide.”

     In short, Peterson has played his cards right, since modern people are still addicted to the precious snowflake philosophy of insane liberalism and narcissism, that was delivered to us by the elites in the 1960s revolution. This was ultimately a revolution against God and the old order, and for humanism and egoism, phenomena which paradoxically can be easily manipulated to become socialistic and communistic. That is the agenda, to break up national unity, fragment individuals, give them a deluded and false sense of identity as consumers, but to ultimately pull the rug out from under them and their dying civilisation. This is not to say that Peterson is consciously part of this, or if it was put to him would in any way agree; he no doubt would reply that he is simply defending freedom. Whatever truth there is to this, the point is that the endgame of his philosophy is an undermining of the very forces that could potentially challenge the globocommo ideology which has produced everything Peterson challenges:



No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Tuesday, 27 October 2020
If you'd like to register, please fill in the username, password and name fields.

By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to