This is queued to where Jordan Peterson explains in under two minutes the title of this post.
He provides us a fine way to defend your right to free speech due to consequences should you be denied. We here use that freedom regularly. The task is to use this line of reasoning to convince the next potential sheep that they must use their free speech while they still have the chance. All but the Statists will benefit.
BTW, there are many other segments in this long interview by John Anderson also worth your time. Some of it I think they miss opportunities, but that’s the nature of good discussion — the listener may find he has thoughts the principals had not even considered.
Great find and Peterson is spot on as always!
Only those who are pathologically naive are allowed to climb the ladder in politics. They are easy to control by those in power. The perfect puppet.
….and if by some miracle a non-lackey, non-professional Republican politician like Trump wins the always rigged election and actually accomplishes in office what he promised during the campaign – you start a witch hunt and to get rid of him!
Good find! And John Anderson’s talent as an interviewer is a surprise too.
It’s evil that’s wants you silenced. Peterson gets this.
Only evil wants you unable to speak, unable to defend yourself, and at the mercies of it’s demons. This is a very good video. What’s heart breaking to me is that the guy isn’t even (a professing) Christian but he expertly takes what we learn in the Old and New Testaments and applies it to our society today. This is supposed to be our preachers, profits, and priests job.
I assure you gentlemen (and ladies), that if the entirety of the Holy Bible were being preached and rightly applied to those that would listen evil would be receding not advancing. This is an historical fact. Truth to power is what God’s people are supposed to do.
Man, would I love to have a three day conversation with him, and then do it again the next week. Alas, I doubt I can afford his rates. I don’t want his clinical psychology help anyway, I would prefer an hours long man to man (not doctor – patient) meeting that would literally require divine intervention to come about.
I am with you with your fantasy opportunity in full Fred.
Among the other segments in this interview there were two that I’d like to share with you as you seem as attuned as I and which I’d love to share with Dr. Peterson.
He repeatedly gets choked up between 12 and 20 minutes about people thanking him for aiding and even saving them. This is hardly showcraft.
Then, in a matter related to his wish to aid the most miserable, at around 25 he touches on the liberal ideal of fixing inequalities. Inequality, he elaborates, is something nobody likes. Yet attempts to bring equity all wind up in the stacking of bodies. At 26:20 he concludes that Left governed society has yet to face the dichotomy and it and “we don’t know what to do about it.”
My take: In the liberal mind is the sincere desire to end suffering. But as the liberal mind has been dragged away from the idea of God based morality “because it’s fantastic and not scientifically provable,” then the very idea of human life being sacred is also discarded as absurd. Man seems in need to believe in something though, so they believe in science. Well, “science” as it is told to them by the highest priests of this now secular religion that’s not called a religion.
What follows may seem to be a leap, but that is only because I’ve abridged the lead in. I’m hoping that this audience doesn’t need for me to fill it in.
This leaves them with the “scientific” cold logic that Malthus has eventually got to be correct. From there it can be seen that “natural common decency” may be lost because that Malthusian thought alleviates any qualms of conscience about bringing an end to lives that, from the libs own preferences, are viewed either as suffering (ill people, retarded people, irredeemably poor people, etc.) or as rebellious (not adhering with the “public good.”)
This is the kind of thought for which I wish I had a sure way to communicate to Dr Peterson so that he might add it to his pondering on why these unthinkable acts remain something “we don’t know what to do about.” That’s because it’s of the nature — “well, the world is gonna be overpopulated anyway, so it’s just too bad the burden must fall on these people we choose to kill so they and our posterity (yet many of these don’t even have kids) don’t suffer. We are doing it for purely altruistic reasons!”
I really need to do a more thorough job at my blog of explaining the dangers from casuists. They were first identified by the Ancient Greek Sophists and then allied with them in achieving the demise of Socrates.
Those who get too deep into exploring cases of conscience repeatedly are lured into believing ends justify the means certainties that are simply deadly — and all while their consciences remain clean. I suspect my opinion is much aligned with yours — the dangers from godless, self-assessed certainties are apt to be the worst catastrophe that could face civilizations.
“My take: In the liberal mind is the sincere desire to end suffering.”
Yes. I’ve often said that we are all just trying to get back to the garden. By not knowing our foundational document (it’s much more than that to me, but you get my point.) the bible, the left has no idea of the actual root cause of their desire to ‘fix’ everything.
We’re not going back to the garden. (The way is guarded by Cherubims.) We can’t go back! So then, what does one do? Well, not knowing the basis for this fallen state as humans the left (and right) absurdly, not realizing God’s given understanding of right and wrong, attempt to use the tools of evil to fix evil.
Not accepting that evil is real is a huge problem today. The bible instructs us that Adam named every creature. God named evil. Once something is named it can be properly defined, then acted upon. Then the absurdity of saying; ‘Well, these people are evil so let’s kill them all.’ suddenly sounds just as dumb as it is.
The devil wants you dead. I’ve looked Christians right in the eye and told them this. He wants you utterly alone, broken, terrified, sick, hopeless…he wants you dead. Evil is not an abstraction.
Now we’ve named evil, personified it, and begun to define it. As Peterson says (mostly rightly) it’s suffering.
The suffering of the soul can be fixed. This is my own testimony and it’s how I know satan’s game against us. We can’t fix suffering with more suffering and we can’t go back to the garden.
So, I ask again; What do we do? Turn again to our foundational document, the Holy Bible. It’s all in there. In it, is the answer. This answer also has a name.
I’ve watched many of Peterson’s vids. He expertly defines the nature of man and provides Natural Law solutions. If you know the LORD then you know from where the Natural Law comes. I’ve watched him literally walk right up to God and look Him in the eye, and then, tragically turn, and walk back to psychology or describe it as metaphor. This is one of the reasons I would love to talk to him. When gets right there, right next to Holy, I want to stop him and tell him to simply say hello or better yet to thank Him for being here in Logos or sentience. God is not existential, or metaphor but to know this a person must talk to Him.
God is screaming at Peterson but he can’t hear it. God must be acknowledged for a person to come to a fullness of the realization of Him.
Simply, just say Hi. Same as any other conversation starts.
“This is Charity. It’s not using evil to fix evil:
“Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
endureth all things.”
I have just finished reading Dr Peterson’s book. I bought it for my son who is in the age bracket 18-35 the group for whom it is primarily intended. I thoroughly appreciated the book. I wish it’d been around about 30 years ago for me to have read then. My son is yet to read it so I still await his thoughts…
I finished it a week or so ago. I liked chapter 11.
I also like; Tell the truth, or at least don’t lie. He set about to tell the truth. Made a conscious decision and practiced. This alone seems like a worthwhile endeavor to undertake and stick with until it becomes second nature, but only if one sticks with it.
To be honest I would have preferred the 124(or however many he said) points broken down instead of mashed up into 12 main points, each with its own chapter.
I think he is better as a conversationalist than trying to get his point(s) across in the written word. I like his vids better than the book. I was hoping that the book had some deeper insights. It was good, but you can simply watch his free vids if you like. You won’t really miss much that way but I was happy to support his work with the purchase.
And let it be known, I have always petted cats that I see on the street.
Yes he is a great conversationalist and your point is well made. That said, reading the written word generally leaves a long imprint on the mind. My wife wishes to read the book and I hope to re-read it once it is returned by my son. I do not know of any women who’ve read it, hence I’ll be interested to see what my wife thinks of the 12 Points.
“..And let it be known, I have always petted cats that I see on the street.”
The measure of a decent man.