Wed, Mar 20, 2019 8:48 p.m.
N.S.: I don't think Jordan Peterson is a conservative, any more than he's a philosopher, but he's filling a void left in academia by racial socialism. Like virtually all humanities and social b.s. profs, philosophy professors are just racial socialist talking points bots, but there are still millions of spiritually starved young people, especially young men, who are flocking to his lectures, watching his youtube videos, and buying his books.
Peterson does the best he can, but he's responding to philosophical and theological questions with answers from psychology. He needs to seriously study philosophy and religion (but not today's Marxist corruptions of them), and adopt their ways of thinking.
As for Peterson's "conservatism," compared to the genocidal racists and sexists who dominate his workplace, I guess he is, sort of, but again, that's less an intellectually or spiritually nourished conservatism than a default neo-conservatism.
One thing that has helped Peterson is that the racial socialist MSM (e.g., the New York Times) have promoted him as a leading conservative thinker, because they have to name someone, and don't want to name anyone who's truly in the cultural conservation business.
Cambridge Uni Drops Fellowship Offer to Conservative Guru Jordan Peterson - Sputnik International - sputniknews.com
Peterson, who is a professor of psychology, is widely known to the public as a harsh critic of political correctness, social justice warriors, as well as for his statements towards hardline feminists, whom he has called "crazy, harpy sisters."
sputniknews.com
2 comments:
The man merely speaks as he does from the standpoint of the psychologist and as Nicholas says is hardly what would be categorized as a conservative. Even that is too much for some people. I he is not acceptable then who is other than a card-carrying communist.
jerry pdx
Jordan Peterson loves to hear himself talk, he puts as much effort into trying to impress his audience with his verbosity as trying to say anything of substance. I've never seen anybody invest more effort into explaining what are essentially simple concepts with over complex verbal gymnastics. But if you can sit through his showing off there's usually a valid point in there somewhere, though he basically sticks to pop conservative topics rather than issues of real substance. There's one debate that's worth listening to when he debated with virulent black racist Michael Dyson, another over educated twit who practices Peterson's verbose style of lecturing or debating, except he does it in the service of black supremacy. If you listen to any of Dyson's lectures you will notice that all his diatribes boil down to is "300 years oppression" and this debate with Peterson is no exception. He also employs racist name calling when he calls Peterson "a mean white man", something that if was used on him in reverse, he would call racist. But of course we know the double standard, it's OK for negro's to use racial slurs against whites but not vice versa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chP_xFklSjQ
Peterson really didn't handle Dyson's race baiting very well in this debate, but he's a smart enough man to realize that Dyson's was hoping to bait him into something that could be characterized as being racist, something that could have been the end of his career.
Post a Comment