Jordan Peterson part 2: JP On Hitler and The JQ

Just a couple of days after I published my blog post criticizing Jordan Peterson’s individual reductionist approach to the social problems alienating and detracting from the life expectations of European men, his professional discipline, for his hypocrisy in regards to free speech, and for superficial and vague dodging of the JQ Peterson gets called out by a Jew about the JQ. Times like these it seems Reality herself literally follows my blog. The story was brought to my attention via the Daily Stormer’s write up.


Years ago I read what was available online of Solzhenityn’s 200 Years Together, the book is mentioned and given to Peterson as a gift in the above clip. The book is about the history of the Jews in Russia – and there is certainly a reason this account written by a gulag survivor and world renowned noble prize winning author has not been translated and available in English; because Solzhenityn crushes the myths of Jewish prosecution. That is to say and I am working on memory here; the Jews, like the very one in the video questioning Peterson on the Jewish role in the Holodomor and subsequent control of US media narratives, have long attested to hatred between Gentiles and Jews as arising because of Gentile reprisals for Jewish success. There were many pogroms against the Jews in Ukraine and Russia and all over Eastern Europe and only in the sense that Jewish success was largely based on exploitative practices fueled by their tribal ethnic hatred of the goyim could one make the case for resentment and jealousy. What happens is Jews say they were persecuted by illiterate peasants out of jealousy through no real faults of their own, this is the same line of specious argument that Peterson uses. 


You can see in this clip on the JRE that Peterson tries to sheepishly avoid the topic, by saying he might say the wrong thing. If that isn’t an indication of Voltaire’s dictum “To determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question: Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?” I don’t know what is.

In the video when discussing the Hitler Question, the Jew Bret Weinstein preambles his position by asking JP, “If I’m cornered will you, (stuttering) come bail me out?” Peterson’s response is “No way man, the knives are coming out.” Weinstein’s ‘controversial’ opinion: “Hitler was a monster (OMG WHAT A REBEL!), as we all know, but he was a rational monster…” Weinstein goes on to say that when austerity hits a society because of loss of opportunity the society looks for some weaker group to blame for its ills. This kind of psychoanalyzing of mass psychology is the same as what I criticized in Peterson’s approach to individual psychology. The question is not raised why did austerity hit? Are there groups who are responsible? and who should be blamed? – that is the question of culpability of problems is not handled rather the symptoms seem to be the products of magical forces worthy of reprieve.

Onto Hitler; the Germans were an upstart nation and within their field of continental thought they had become giants, the new inheritors of the Greeks as Hegel would have put it. But also industrially and scientifically they had begun to displace and replace the British as the major economic power in the world. The theory that the Americans got involved in the war due to a ‘special relationship’ (a more integrated global usury system with leading branches in New York and London) with their one time parent nation, is also mitigated by many other historical factors. But the Balfour Declaration granting Lord Rothschild the two-centuries-longed-for-Jewish-homeland in Palestine surely tipped Jewish support totally in favor of the Anglo-Americans. The Dolchstoßlegende the stab in the back “myth” along with economic warfare perfected against Germany during the Second Moroccan Crisis (the Agadir Crisis) meant that the German nation could not count on even nationally grown Jewish favor and the credit lines to the war backers suddenly dried up.


Keep killing each other Goyim, my cousin Bleichroder financed the nation – WE OWN YOU

Now hardly anyone ever mentions any of these factors or looks at them critically, but everyone knows what happened next in the Treaty of Versailles (austerity). (Likewise the 2011 financial crisis just happened Goyim, no one’s to blame, ‘too big to fail’ we just happened to give foreign people our money and jobs while importing millions of them into our countries – that’s just the “market” and the “invisible hand,” no identifiable groups are pulling strings or stabbing backs – we’re all in this together – we are the world, kumbuya).


Now ask yourself did the German nation and people have multiple reasons for “disliking” Jews? (not merely the racial Darwinian one of muh blonde hair, muh blue eyes kin – and this is just the tip of the iceberg off the top of my head and the tip of my tongue). Or was it all according to Weinstein and Peterson; “Hitler was a monster and hard times make people look for scapegoats and they’re just jealous of Jewish success?” – massive psychobabble!

Back to Germany; while at the same time that the nation is brought to financial ruin largely by Jews, Jewish communists in Russia are slaughtering the White Russians, peasants and the Christian clerics and clergy, enforcing a genocide on Ukrainians and centralizing power to turn the nation into a bleak nihilistic dystopia. Making the native Russians obedient workers to a slave run materialist doctrine with Jews as the drivers. In Berlin the Jew Rosa Luxemberg and in Munich the Jew Eisner are fermenting the same Red takeover in Germany. But Hitler was a monster. 

This is not the sort of historical nuance you learn in school and my quest to discover the “Why?” ultimately makes one angry at being taught half-truths and distortions, but they say the winners write the history books. But for Weinstein “the opportunity has all been absorbed” as in “it just happened nobody benefited or orchestrated it goys.” The Treaty of Versailles and the harsh austerity doled out to Germany meant that the Allies were able to pay back their (((Money Lenders))) of which the Anglo-French Financial Commission had been arranged through Rothschild agent JP Morgan Jr. But according to Peterson his disagreement with Weinstein over the Hitler Question are not due to any of these historical facts that give the “Why?” meaning, no his “disagreement” is that “Hitler is even more evil than we thought he was.” That’s clinical psychology for you.

Apparently Adolf just didn’t want to clean his room. JP through did have one caveat for Old Uncle and did say he did wonders for the German economy (well that’s what happens when you nationalize the bank, print your own monetary notes backed by public trust in the government, control inflation and kick out the usurious Jews who undermine the nation for tribalist profit). But never mind the tribalism, the nepotism, the usury, the media lies, the manipulation of Gentile society to fit their ‘open society’ curriculum, the quest to degenerate and replace Europeans due to the two thousand years of tribal animus, and the murder of the God of universal love… You’re all just jelly. 






28 thoughts on “Jordan Peterson part 2: JP On Hitler and The JQ

    1. It’s not even about racism, Peterson pretends to have nuanced and well thought out views; but when it comes to truly contentious issues like the JQ and fascism he reverts to psychological mumbojumbo. He’s a fraud.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. This obviously matters to you. It obviously doesn’t matter to him. It also doesn’t matter to me.

        I literally don’t know what a JQ is. I also don’t know how you define fascism, but Jordan Peterson has come out against the results.

        It would be just as relevant if I asked him about cryptography and the FBI’s position on going dark when it may make more sense as a society to just focus on quantum computers and the potential impacts. I wouldn’t expect him to be an expert in an area he doesn’t purport to be an expert in. That is reasonable.


    2. Read Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique. Read Douglas Reed’s The Controversy of Zionism. Read Gilad Atzmon’s The Wandering Who. Read The Occidental Observer. Read Karl Marx On The Jewish Question. Have some background knowledge of this field, then come talk to me.


  1. Did you read the article at all? Jordan Peterson cannot stop talking about these areas, it is not an issue of him ‘not being an expert’ he literally fronts like his opinion on these issues carries a deep psychological insight, he literally preambles his views by stating something to the effect of “I’ve studied and thought carefully about this.”


    1. He has studied the areas and thought about them without the element of race. It is very obvious when you listen to him and read what he writes. You are injecting race into every area. It isn’t a required element to understanding any of the things Dr. Peterson talks about.


      1. Again did you read the article? I’m even sure if I discussed race except tangentially because the topics are literally ‘the Jews’ and ‘Hitler’… I am not sure how a discussion about these topics would go without examining some aspect of identity politics, ethno-nationalism, tribalism and race.


      2. You are concerned with ideology, I believe. You can correlate race with an ideology (possibly) but you can’t prove causation. It would be better to correlate the ideology with individuals and then track the ideology itself. Evidence says doing otherwise has terrible results. Even a 1% false positive rate is completely unacceptable when accusing people of something.

        It is obvious that Jordan Peterson has looked at subversion and ideology. He has studied both the Nazis and Marxists, who are very similar in their tactics in many regards. I’d say that the Nazis targeted Jews is more of a footnote than the primary interesting thing about what they did. It seems Jordan Peterson may agree with that.


      3. Because otherwise you are just blindly targeting Jews for no reason? If your targeting of Jews has nothing to do with their actions, you have just selected them randomly as a group you dislike. Perhaps using a dart board or a magic 8 ball?

        I was giving you more credit than that.


      4. Does it have to do with how they look or smell? I can’t find your writing on that topic.

        Since it seems to be with how they behave, I assume it is their actions and ideology you care about. Do you think 100% of all biological Jews currently alive share the same ideology and are undertaking the same actions?

        I am not sure that Ben Shapiro, Noam Chomski, and Jerry Seinfeld are all on the same page on how to overthrow the white race. Can you help me understand how their inate Jewishness is a problem?

        Again, I will posit, you have a problem with actions and ideology. Not race. Even if it correlates along racial lines, it is not caused by someone being Jewish in 100% of cases.

        My problem still comes back to the fact that I have seen zero evidence that “the Jews” are doing anything in society as a group. You could say “the Jews” have a higher average intelligence and conscientiousness and have positions of meaning in companies. You could then say some institutions do things that you dislike.

        I am not sure how to go beyond those two statements. Have you or anyone else written something spelling out how evil the Jews are innately in 100% of all cases, with evidence and research?


      5. It sounds like the religion and culture are your complaint again. Namely, the ideology that spawns from both are what you are addressing still. I am fine with those ideas being the target, but Jew can mean either an adherent to a religion or a lineage of people.

        If you are talking about the religion and the culture around it, I think that is a valid and interesting conversation. I spoke with someone from the Jewish lineage recently who is not a religious Jew. He was still a part of the Jewish culture in some ways due to those in his family that were religious.

        He’d said there is a huge push to achieve within the culture. If you are targeting some of the things that people are prone to target, have a culture that drives you to succeed, and have an underpinning that may want to change things for the “better” I can see how there is a high prevalence of power and activism within the culture.

        The culture associates with the lineage. The religion creates the culture. From my perspective, it is three conversations with the least interesting being the lineage. When you focus on the lineage, it removes many people from the conversation. If you focus on ideas like critical theory or propose that Judaism may have led people to a power based activism in advance of those theories being on paper, it is interesting.

        If you boil it down to a person’s lineage, it just becomes confusing to me how that would work.

        Hopefully that makes sense. I don’t think you and others are far off in finding something interesting. I just think there is a rabbit hole that people get stuck on based on someone’s lineage that doesn’t really serve a purpose.


      6. They are a corrosive force who socially engineer society to their advantage and our loss. I’m not sure why you’re having trouble with understanding this.


      7. Enough of them that it is a problem that needs to be addressed and dealt with. Recriminations are in order. Jews have a different identity, a different story from Europeans, and because of this they are incompatible. Is it biologically innate, I don’t believe so.


      8. Are you for or against slavery? How do you handle using the same logic you use against the Jews when looking at a topic like slavery? Do you feel guilty over having owned slaves as a people?


      9. This is a laughable false dichotomy. Firstly, I never owned slaves. Secondly, there is something called historical relativism. Thirdly Jewish manipulation is ongoing, whereas European Christian civilization ended slavery over 150 years ago. Don’t be asinine.


      10. I don’t understand why “the Jews” should take credit for the actions of others in their group while you don’t.

        Since you reject the analogy because of it being too long ago, how do you feel about the “patriarchy” (same concept as the JQ and relevant today) or people doing mass shootings? What are you doing to atone for those things? I am guessing you reject them with logic such as “I didn’t do those things.” I wonder if that should apply to other people as well…


      11. The rejection of your false dichotomy does not merely rest on historical relativism, but on the ‘apples and oranges’ of the comparison. Fundamentally the question becomes ‘what is good for me’ and ‘what is good for my group’ – Jews and their social engineering are bad for both. Jews engage in dishonest relationship with their host nation, they take credit and engage in these actions as Jews not as individuals – why should they not be held responsible as a collective?



        I think that assertion has been pretty thoroughly falsified. People who are of the Jewish lineage do not act as a single group. There are also people who are not Jewish doing the exact same things you are blaming the people of Jewish lineage for.

        It’s interesting that now that the Alt-Right has developed, it has become more obvious to people that the postmodern thought and usage of critical theory is the same as what the social justice activists do.

        If you want to hold the Jews responsible as a collective, you are part of the collective of whites in general that the social justice activists want to overthrow. I suggest drinking bleach in penitence and then, once you are cleansed, going forth and attacking the Jews knowing you are not as guilty as “them” any longer.


  2. The audience wouldn’t let the presenter of Solzy’s 200 Years Together to Peterson even finish before they stared in with the mumph-grumbling. Peterson will be probably be brought down by the celebrity worship he’s obviously enjoying now. This is made possible by the media which he must be aware will pull the carpet right out from under him if he touches the JQ Third Rail. He’s a failure as a Canadian Free Speech crusader for never mentioning Ernst Zundel’s tribulations, but then he says he’s an apolitical psychologist-philosopher not a historian, or a human rights activist. I enjoy his jousting with cultural Marxists, but you can tell he’s a successful academic and bit of a demagogue and not really JQ martyr material. His books would not be flying of the shelf if he was. In fact, he’d lose his job and his lecturing gigs in a Manhattan minute. Not a really a fraud. More of a coward.


  3. atius45

    Most of your critiques on j-people (like mine) come from a metaphysically catholic world view. But since Peterson (and most of the West tbh) no longer hold to those views, then there isn’t any solid grounds to critique jewish activity. At best you can pull out some evo-strat pseudo science and try explain that ‘helping out your cousin’ is somehow evil, but good luck with that.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s