Saturday, December 2, 2017

"But That Wasn't Real Communism, Socialism, or Marxism!"



  1. Now he has three marks against him.

    First, he's no Christian, as so many want to claim.

    Second, he's right on a couple of things (certainly the gender issue and probably postmodernism), but that's not enough to give him a pass on his new-agey, psychological gobbledy-goop. He's kind of a smarter, faster talking version of Dr. Phil, imo, and at least 90% of what he spouts is garbage.

    Third, he has no idea on how to wear a tie. The tie he's wearing in that video is probably too long to start with, but, regardless, the end of your tie comes to your belt. Both he and Trump could learn a thing or two from John T. Molloy's 1975 classic Dress for Success (and updates.)

    1. I think you missed the point.

    2. You sound like a post-modernist.

    3. "I think you missed the point."

      Nope. Making a new one - I'm bothered by so many libertarians' infatuation with Peterson (Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Bob Murphy, Bionic Mosquito, and now Bob Wenzel), when he has little going for him we can't get elsewhere. Here is a portion of what I posted a while back on Bob Murphy's website:

      Bob - Colossians 2:8 says, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” [This is what I see happening with Peterson. I then mentioned that I emailed Gary North about Peterson.]

      Dr. North –

      I’m a little concerned about the Jordan Peterson “bandwagon.” Tom Woods and Bob Murphy seem a bit enamored with him, and Monday’s [9/4/17] has an article by Ira Katz where he mentions Peterson’s lecture series and how it takes “a rational approach to the Bible stories through the latest understanding of neuroscience, psychoanalysis (Peterson is also a clinical psychologist), evolutionary biology, philosophy, literature (the wisdom of our civilization), and art.”

      I’m sure you recognize this is exactly backwards. The Bible is to be used to assess and shed light on those disciplines, not the other way around. While I’m no expert on Peterson (more power to him on the gender issue), as best as I can tell, while he reluctantly refers to himself as a Christian, I see nothing Christian about him.

      He rejects historic Christian doctrine, rejects the Genesis account as history, accepts evolution, questions the Deity of Christ and even questions if He existed. He sees Biblical accounts as “stories” rather than literal history (allegory, metaphor, etc.). His perspective seems more new agey than anything. I’m wondering if you have written anything on him or if you are familiar with anyone who has – from an orthodox Christian perspective, of course. Without sounding too dramatic, before this gets out of hand, someone needs to write an expose on him. I’m not the guy, but I’m thinking you might be or know someone that is (or maybe has already done it – I’ve checked with the more well-known apologetics ministries and haven’t found anything.)

      Dr. North replied:

      "Just another liberal. They are like cockroaches. Step on one, and four more appear."

      "What I do not understand is why any Bible-believer pays any attention to such people. But they do."

      He gave me permission to share his response.

      "You sound like a post-modernist."

      That's pretty funny. I just said he was right about postmodernism. The only reason I said 'probably' is because I haven't listened to everything he's said on the subject (and I can't and won't - I can't listen to him for too long or my brain wants to explode. All his psychological double-talk and mythologizing of Christianity and the Bible drives me nuts.) A broken clock is right twice a day - in Peterson's case, that would be the gender issue and postmodernism. Everything else we can reject.

    4. Mister Spock,

      Maybe Peterson is not a Christian, or maybe he is just not your kind of Christian.

      The reason libertarians are “infatuated” with and why “Bible-believer pays any attention to” Peterson is that he is informed, knowledgeable, articulate and correct about most of what he addresses. He also does not mince his words.

      I appreciate his “mythologizing of Christianity”. I am interested in mythology, put into the correct context mythology sheds light on human existence and history. Also I am not a Christian.

      You say Peterson “rejects the Genesis account as history”, and “sees Biblical accounts as “stories” rather than literal history”. I am genuinely interested to know if most Christians do see Biblical accounts as literal history. This would be surprising to me not only based on my contact with Christians but because I have read (years ago) all of Genesis and some of other parts of the Bible. I do see some historical value in the Bible but to what extent would a person have to take the historical accounts in the Bible literally for you or Mr. North to pay attention to?

      On evolution, cannot one believe in creation and that evolution is part of it? There certainly is an awful lot of evidence the organisms mutate and these mutations are inherited.

    5. Alex - "Maybe Peterson is not a Christian, or maybe he is just not your kind of Christian."

      The Bible tells us what Christians believe. He doesn't believe those things, ergo...

      "Peterson is...correct about most of what he addresses."

      An opinion.

      "I am genuinely interested to know if most Christians do see Biblical accounts as literal history."

      I don't have a percentage on that, but would say that Christians should accept the Bible as the authority on all subjects it addresses; especially on those directly addressed by Jesus.

      "I do see some historical value in the Bible but to what extent would a person have to take the historical accounts in the Bible literally for you or Mr. North to pay attention to?"

      There are many types of literature in the Bible - historical narrative, poetry, parables, letters, prophecy, etc. We should read and understand a passage or a book in the sense that the author intended, which is determined by context.

      "On evolution, cannot one believe in creation and that evolution is part of it?"

      In Genesis 1:31, after completing the creation of the world, including all plant, animal and human life, we read, "God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good."

      Evolution tells us that it took God millions of years of suffering, disease, struggling, pain, bloodshed, war, ignorance, poverty, mutilation, rape, misery, torment, violence, and death to get us to the point where God said it was all "very good."

      The Bible, otoh, tells us that God created the world, plants, animals, Adam and Eve, and THEN sin entered the world (Romans 5:12), and we have been under a curse ever since.

      Why would the omnipotent Creator of the universe use such a wasteful (and cruel) process of survival of the fittest (meaning that animals have been ripping each other up over millions of years) to bring about the higher forms of life? This view of theistic evolution goes against God's very nature, and, if I may use my namesake's favorite word, logic - there is no evidence for molecules to man (or goo to you via the zoo) evolution.

  2. Well I don't like to go all ad hominem, but you have stepped over the line, bucko.
    1. I never thought he was a Christian. He's never claimed to be.
    2A: Yes, he's completely correct as to cultural Marxism and postmodernism etc. One for you.
    2B: New-agey?? Really?? Are you really that ignorant? He is the FARTHEST thing from new age. He is as grounded and tough - minded as ANY psychologist could be. Jesus! Really?
    Oh yes, he IS a psychologist. A very good one. A clinical psychologist who works with real people with real problems.
    3. Yeah, his tie is too long. I have the same problem, being a short fucker and all.

    1. Well, Mr. Potty Mouth, you are right about the ad hominemism, if that's a word. Because of that, and taking the Lord's name in vain (something that Peterson, who *has* claimed to be a Christian, does too), no reply for you. Come back in one year.

  3. Mr spock.

    You probably havent given peterson enough of your attention to get him. His breakdown of primal motivations overlayed with modern social structure may be of interest to you. I believe he has applied Jung and Nietzsche in a very contextually appropriate manner to explain much if how our modern social structures and customs fail the needs of the individual and more importantly a framework to be healthy within it. Peterson is a brutal arsonist to the idiocracy.

    1. You should have mentioned the zeitgeist and something about ontology, too. More psychobabble double-talk. If you were trying to be funny, good job. If not, sorry if you really think like that.