@Woodsman, I don't think my post represents black and white thinking. I hope you see it as far more nuanced than that.
Also, the fact that you feel Jordan Peterson has helped you doesn't become "not so" because we are examining him more closely. No one is retroactively negating the good that he has done people. At least I'm not. Anyway, I'll say more after quoting Yupo's post:
I just watched the video as well. However, I find myself agreeing with most if the points Hugo is making as far as the pressing issues Peterson is sidestepping here.
Let me take the time to transcribe just what Peterson did say so there are no illusions about that. I still recommend viewing the clip too since his whole demeaner says a lot. Unfortunately, what's left out in the video is just what question Peterson is responding to here:
Again (same quote) with my own highlighting:
As I was indicating earlier in mentioning Peterson's recommending Solzhenitsyn, this is a person versed in totalitarianism -- a point that Hugo also makes. That Peterson is not speaking to that very phenomenon which is now profoundly exclaiming itself all around us is pretty hard to take on board without taking a serious look at his motives. It's not that he's incapable of rendering an insightful cultural and/or political critique, after all. As we all know, he's very capable. And yet here he's reluctant to come forward with much of anything. Actually, he's downright feeble seeming. Maybe that's the problem. He's been through hell with his illness, and he's still not quite well, and so he's just not going to take on the PTB in any serious way. Yes, he's playing lip service to civil liberties. And he says he is-- let me quote him:
"And I would be.. unwilling to compel them to take it by force, that's for sure. Because that's not the right approach."
Hmm.. "because that's not the right approach." Wow. What an underwhelming statement. So, it's not because we are sailing into totalitarianism right now, as we speak? And forcing vaccinations on people is central to such an onerous totalitarian agenda? Not that? No, instead it's "because that's not the right approach." How namby-pamby.
I have to say, to me this whole clip of Peterson has a wishy washy quality to it -- especially when you get to the part where he confesses:
"... I'm wearing the mask when I'm required to. So... that's the best I can do with that. I have no particular insight with regards to this pandemic."
Really? One would have thought that a man whose notoriety is based on what one might call "compelling insights" that that might come to bear when faced with one of the most devastating (by design) crises of our time. But no. He has nothing to bring to the table.
Notice how when he states "I'm wearing the mask when required to," that that's supposed to represent something. He's meaning to say something else with that. In other words, he's taking their bad medicine, he's wearing their masks, etc., all without question. He's submitting. He's resigned. In that he seems defeated. But by whom? By what? Is it that he's being "coerced" in some way to demonstrate such obedience?
"But I understand the position of those who don't want to take it."
Does he really "understand" the position of those who don't want the vaccine, as he claims here? I honestly don't think so. I think there's a lot of rhetoric here -- he's saying the things that he feels he "should" say -- but he provides very little detail as to what he actually means. If he truly understood the position of those who don't want the vaccine -- the legitimate science, and analysis attached to this position -- it would be incomprehensible that he'd be taking the vaccine himself, so I do question his--if not lack of sincerity then his faulty reasoning here. But are we SURE he hasn't been backed into a corner with all this?
HAS he been threatened in some way? IS he playing it safe in order to protect himself and his family? Or is he just so blindly obedient to [corrupted] "scientific" authority that he can't see the forest for the trees? But, I mean, really? After all he's been through recently?
On the mind control issue (which I brought up in my last post), if he is some manner of "tool" (even if unbeknownst to himself), it would be useful to attempt to draw that out, and see how this might be operating. Actually, it's sometimes surprising who, upon closer examination, falls into the category of programmed operative. What's slippery here is that often what causes one to throw caution to the wind, as it were, as concerns one's attachment to a particular public figure are the things that draw us to these individuals in the first place: their extraordinary gifts, their sensitivity, their sincerity, intelligence, etc., which are very likely the things that would have had them singled out for "processing" to begin with. Oh, and given their considerable gifts, this also means they are likely to be exceptionally sensitive individuals as well, which we see is the case with Jordan Peterson.
In the case of many mind control victims, over time you start to see the gradual dissolving of the boundaries separating the heretofore discreet programmed alters. This invariably leads to some manner of breakdown. Why I bring this up in the context of Jordan Peterson is that his recent breakdown at the time his wife became ill could be giving us a clue as to Peterson's extreme vulnerability -- something his long-time controllers/handlers would have always have been on hand to in some way deal with -- that is, IF he were targeted at some point for this type of processing. I'm not saying he was. I'm just testing the waters here. Recall again the malignant goings on at his alma mater McGill University in Montreal. (By the way, if you look up Ann Diamond's book "My Cold War," you get a personal account of just what was going on at McGill and its affiliated hospital the Alan Memorial in the 50's and 60's.)
As I write this I'm now wondering about the doctor who prescribed that debilitating drug (debilitating at least for some). You see, if I were to pursue this line of research I'd start to take a much closer look at all the variables concerning Peterson's recent breakdown. After all, one thing we CAN be certain of is that it's very seldom that things are exactly as they appear to be. There's usually something being left out. And sometimes that's the "crucial" thing.
"Although I would encourage people to--get the damn vaccine, let's get the hell over this."
Underneath it all (if Peterson is in any way being coerced), I don't think his rather fleeting, goading statement urging people to take the vaccine was directed at those who have already made up their minds not to take it. I think it's directed at those on the fence. After all, if you were on the fence about taking the jab (which suggests you haven't really looked into the science-based objections very much, if at all), and someone like Peterson, who you've always admired and looked up to, urged you to just get it over with already, and take the damn vaccine... I mean, this just might do the trick. After all, HE got it, didn't he? Why shouldn't you?
Thinking about it now, it's actually a rather brilliant approach since he's not pleading with anybody, or laying out the [bogus] science or anything. Instead, he just matter-of-factly "injects" his directive, as if wanting to get his [dirty little] role in all this out of the way so he too can return to his own life, etc.
To me, targeting the "on the fence" crowd would be the agenda laid out by the controllers involved -- if Peterson were, in fact, being pressured to do this. After all, you target the people you are most likely to have success with. And you skip the science part since you know it's being intelligently refuted all over the place at this point so why implicate yourself in all that when, as much of the population has already demonstrated, you don't really need to.
But back on Peterson: why would he even care whether others are vaccinated or not if he
weren't being somehow pressured to take such a stand? After all, it's not his job to get "enlistees." Or is it? I guess I'm back to that point again: does Peterson really have no apprehensions as to the motives of those running the show, including the financial stakeholders in this enormously lucrative field of vaccines? These sorts of questions go to why his seeming "innocence" in all of this becomes so hard to stomach. It's as if we have to bend over backwards to make his role in this somehow palatable. Oh, he's always been into "Official Science." That's just how his mind works. He can't help it.
--uh,
what??
And again, why does he feel it's up to him to take on this role of giving that decisive little push to the as yet unvaccinated? Doesn't that suggest someone succumbing to whatever pressures are involved, and just
doing someone else's bidding
? I mean, if he honestly feels these are good vaccines then let's do the science together; let's hear why he thinks this. Instead he claims to "know" why people are against it. He's an understanding guy, after all. (Pretty evasive.)
Overall, I think Peterson's earnestness belies as yet unknown motives and/or compelling circumstances. It doesn't necessarily have to do with mind control, but I wouldn't summarily dismiss that option either. Look at it this way: he himself is even apologizing for his lousy answer. This indicates he knows he's not living up to the standards he no doubt has set for himself. And in that he's admitting defeat.
While on the topic of mind control,
The Manchurian Candidate, a 1962 film based on a novel by Richard Condon, is still such a disturbing rendition of the use of mind control during the Cold War years. Those versed in the subject swear to the film's authenticity. It doesn't hurt that John Frankenheimer is the director. As you'll see, pulling off this first scene wouldn't be exactly easy. It's appropriately disorienting, but eventually you come to realize just what it is you are being presented with: a disjointed fictional reality (achieved through "brainwashing") imposed on captured soldiers in a military setting. Strange that in watching this scenario one becomes self conscious as to one's own vulnerability to manipulation as this disjointed, somehow surreal demonstration unfolds on screen. (By the way, has anyone read a Condon novel? Might be something to try.)
! It's not going to work for sure. I've also noticed the animosity from some of his former supporters. I think his family was threatened in a serious way and so he backed down. He still can be helpful however. There's no doubt he did a tremendous job inspiring people along with the many other things he did to improve lives and get the country back on track.. He planted a lot of powerful seeds and they've been sprouting up all over.
