Outgrowing Contrarian Rock Stars: By Way Of James Delingpole's 2022 Essay, "Put Not Your Trust In Jordan Peterson" I Finally See That For All The Good He May Have Done, He's Not Quite Sound
Outgrowing Contrarian Rock Stars: By Way Of James Delingpole's 2022 Essay, "Put Not Your Trust In Jordan Peterson" I Finally See That For All The Good He May Have Done, He's Not Quite Sound
I love your honesty and humility, Celia. Your willingness to reconsider preconceptions in light of new evidence keeps you from stagnating and falling into the traps that frequently ensnare the close-minded.
I don’t like to speculate about whether someone is controlled opposition without evidence (which can rarely be found), and I generally follow Aisling O’Loughlin’s strategy (without knowing it existed until reading this article).
I don’t think Jordan Peterson is intentionally controlled, but he is serving that purpose nevertheless. I think he is emotionally and psychologically fragile, and his judgment has been impaired accordingly.
I lost respect for him when he failed to see the glaring totalitarianism he had been warning about for years—despite having recommended a litany of books that should have equipped anyone paying attention to recognize the signs.
Still, I have him to thank for nudging me to prioritize the reading of books I consider part of my essential reading list now, from Christopher Browning’s “Ordinary Men” to Orwell’s “Road to Wigan Pier” to Solzhenitsyn’s “Gulag Archipelago.” And for that, I remain grateful.
Jul 13, 2023·edited Jul 13, 2023Liked by Celia Farber
I'm genuinely bemused, as I often am, by these claims of "controlled opposition", it has become the "safe and effective" of the freedom movement.
Delingpole thinks that JP is actually intentionally shilling for the globalists? If you tell me he's wrong, he's lost it, he's misguided, he's accidentally putting the young men into a pen and he is allowed (and maybe given help) to flourish because the globalists like this mistake he's making and so on, I get can on board with this. I've stopped listening to him myself long ago.
But rather like Brand, he is a man obviously trying to speak the truth and not someone who will read from a script to please the globalists. This seems obvious to me. So, genuine question - which is it? Is it that he is fed his lines and talking points by the globalists, or do they allow him to keep in the limelight because his attempts at speaking his truth are actually helping them fracture the Right?
And if it's the first, can someone give a concrete example of him speaking lines he doesn't believe and was fed by someone else?
Sorry, but I can’t get past the mean-spiritedness of Delingpole’s intro. “Annoying, wheedling voice.” How gratuitous. Peterson’s not perfect, but I doubt Delingpole is either. Peterson is very precise in his diction, and not everyone can follow his train of thought. Maybe they feel stupid because of this and they’re angry for feeling stupid, and lash out at him for this? Not many in academia have the courage to stand up against its insidious woke movement. At the very least, Peterson gets credit for this.
I always thought that Jordan Peterson, like most Jungians, is an intellectual lightweight (“tell me your fear and I’ll tell you what happened to you” — this is deep insight?) with slippery morals, both of which are characteristic of Jung himself, the man and the work.
Ask a Jungian, for instance, what the relation between “individuation” and the “collective unconscious” is — the answer will tell you there is no coherence in this jargon-riddled school.
As for ethics: What did you do in the war, Carl? The Swiss citizen edited a psychiatry journal directly controlled by top-ranking Nazis.
It’s a mystery to me what value anyone finds in Jung’s serial truisms (see his self-serving introduction to “Man and his Symbols,” for instance). Equally baffling is why no one — including JP -- ever questions his contribution to the Reich.
I was never able to see what others saw in him. He comes across as a self righteous prideful ass to me, no matter what comes out of his mouth. Wrong energy is a red flag to me.
Yes the benzo period, so well timed with the begining of absolute tyranny was just too coincidental. If not, then that makes JP the most credulous fool in history to trust a prescription like that. Either way, trust has long since left the building.
While Jim Caviezel praised Peterson for his questions during a recent interview on the Sound of Freedom movie which also included Tim Ballard, I found myself looking askance at Dr. Peterson a few times and wondering whose side he was on.
Wonderful post, and you have thought through and beautifully laid out what my mind has struggled with in relation to JP, but didn't consciously understand. Thank you.
Honestly, I don’t see why you went here. I generally like JP but his highbrow academic language and sanctimonious style are off putting. Who cares. I liked where you started…let’s stick to debating peoples’s ideas and not the people themselves. We are all guilty of thinking we know the mind and intentions of other people at some point and now, unfortunately, so are you.
There’s a pile of people whom I admire and who have disappointed the hell out of me- Noam Chomsky and Joanie Mitchell come popping into my mind. They are just people. I don’t expect them to be perfect. I’m not a child and I don’t have hero worship. I e grown up to see that mom and dad and all my “heroes” are fallible and that’s ok. I can deal with it without needing to jump on and off any bandwagons.
Let’s all have some compassion for our humanness and have debates and disagreements without needing to “erase” someone ok?
"The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were."
JOHN F. KENNEDY
( I would prefer that you introduce us to new writers but let us make up our own mind about the content )
It is synchronistic that you just posted this as as around 2 hours ago I shared your article from yesterday in JD's Telegram group and told him he should get you on his podcast! I would love it for you 2 to have a chat. I also listened to the rest of the podcast with your friend Nick Bryant and the 2 comedians earlier and thought it was great. Nick is a very brave man
I love your honesty and humility, Celia. Your willingness to reconsider preconceptions in light of new evidence keeps you from stagnating and falling into the traps that frequently ensnare the close-minded.
I don’t like to speculate about whether someone is controlled opposition without evidence (which can rarely be found), and I generally follow Aisling O’Loughlin’s strategy (without knowing it existed until reading this article).
I don’t think Jordan Peterson is intentionally controlled, but he is serving that purpose nevertheless. I think he is emotionally and psychologically fragile, and his judgment has been impaired accordingly.
I lost respect for him when he failed to see the glaring totalitarianism he had been warning about for years—despite having recommended a litany of books that should have equipped anyone paying attention to recognize the signs.
I give him credit for acknowledging he was wrong about COVID and eventually recognizing the signs of tyranny (https://mathewaldred.substack.com/p/jordan-peterson-we-abdicated-responsibility), but he still is a mainstream straddler (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-a-mainstream-straddler) with bad takes on topics like protecting people’s right to privacy (https://joshketry.substack.com/p/elon-and-dr-jordan-peterson-spar).
Still, I have him to thank for nudging me to prioritize the reading of books I consider part of my essential reading list now, from Christopher Browning’s “Ordinary Men” to Orwell’s “Road to Wigan Pier” to Solzhenitsyn’s “Gulag Archipelago.” And for that, I remain grateful.
I'm genuinely bemused, as I often am, by these claims of "controlled opposition", it has become the "safe and effective" of the freedom movement.
Delingpole thinks that JP is actually intentionally shilling for the globalists? If you tell me he's wrong, he's lost it, he's misguided, he's accidentally putting the young men into a pen and he is allowed (and maybe given help) to flourish because the globalists like this mistake he's making and so on, I get can on board with this. I've stopped listening to him myself long ago.
But rather like Brand, he is a man obviously trying to speak the truth and not someone who will read from a script to please the globalists. This seems obvious to me. So, genuine question - which is it? Is it that he is fed his lines and talking points by the globalists, or do they allow him to keep in the limelight because his attempts at speaking his truth are actually helping them fracture the Right?
And if it's the first, can someone give a concrete example of him speaking lines he doesn't believe and was fed by someone else?
Yes. Have been a JP skeptic for a long time, but that does not mean I don't think he is useful in making people start to question things. Like Trump
Celia Farber . . . always thinking carefully and critically via a nice balance of intellect and emotion.
Sorry, but I can’t get past the mean-spiritedness of Delingpole’s intro. “Annoying, wheedling voice.” How gratuitous. Peterson’s not perfect, but I doubt Delingpole is either. Peterson is very precise in his diction, and not everyone can follow his train of thought. Maybe they feel stupid because of this and they’re angry for feeling stupid, and lash out at him for this? Not many in academia have the courage to stand up against its insidious woke movement. At the very least, Peterson gets credit for this.
Thanks Celia. I never once listened to the guy. Read the Bible - the word of God; any man-created talk or text is way, way behind the curve. Peace.
I always thought that Jordan Peterson, like most Jungians, is an intellectual lightweight (“tell me your fear and I’ll tell you what happened to you” — this is deep insight?) with slippery morals, both of which are characteristic of Jung himself, the man and the work.
Ask a Jungian, for instance, what the relation between “individuation” and the “collective unconscious” is — the answer will tell you there is no coherence in this jargon-riddled school.
As for ethics: What did you do in the war, Carl? The Swiss citizen edited a psychiatry journal directly controlled by top-ranking Nazis.
It’s a mystery to me what value anyone finds in Jung’s serial truisms (see his self-serving introduction to “Man and his Symbols,” for instance). Equally baffling is why no one — including JP -- ever questions his contribution to the Reich.
I was never able to see what others saw in him. He comes across as a self righteous prideful ass to me, no matter what comes out of his mouth. Wrong energy is a red flag to me.
Yes the benzo period, so well timed with the begining of absolute tyranny was just too coincidental. If not, then that makes JP the most credulous fool in history to trust a prescription like that. Either way, trust has long since left the building.
While Jim Caviezel praised Peterson for his questions during a recent interview on the Sound of Freedom movie which also included Tim Ballard, I found myself looking askance at Dr. Peterson a few times and wondering whose side he was on.
Wonderful post, and you have thought through and beautifully laid out what my mind has struggled with in relation to JP, but didn't consciously understand. Thank you.
when the ears hear someone/something that seems revelatory the technology of the gut is key for effecting discernment...
(edit: and that's part of the reason for the assault on the microbiome ;)
Honestly, I don’t see why you went here. I generally like JP but his highbrow academic language and sanctimonious style are off putting. Who cares. I liked where you started…let’s stick to debating peoples’s ideas and not the people themselves. We are all guilty of thinking we know the mind and intentions of other people at some point and now, unfortunately, so are you.
There’s a pile of people whom I admire and who have disappointed the hell out of me- Noam Chomsky and Joanie Mitchell come popping into my mind. They are just people. I don’t expect them to be perfect. I’m not a child and I don’t have hero worship. I e grown up to see that mom and dad and all my “heroes” are fallible and that’s ok. I can deal with it without needing to jump on and off any bandwagons.
Let’s all have some compassion for our humanness and have debates and disagreements without needing to “erase” someone ok?
That’s just my opinion for what it’s worth.
"The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were."
JOHN F. KENNEDY
( I would prefer that you introduce us to new writers but let us make up our own mind about the content )
It is synchronistic that you just posted this as as around 2 hours ago I shared your article from yesterday in JD's Telegram group and told him he should get you on his podcast! I would love it for you 2 to have a chat. I also listened to the rest of the podcast with your friend Nick Bryant and the 2 comedians earlier and thought it was great. Nick is a very brave man
I have listened to him a few times and I will listen to him again.