Reply to Jordan Peterson on the Jewish Question — From His Heroes Part One: Solzhenitsyn

“The Aryan subconscious has a higher potential than the Jewish.”
G. Jung


I recently took some time to devote serious attention to the work of Jordan Peterson. Until a few months ago, my familiarity with Peterson had been limited to his very weak and ill-advised intervention in the Nathan Cofnas affair. At that time, I toyed with the idea of providing a series of historical examples (there are many) that would contradict every one of Peterson’s assertions regarding the Jewish Question, but, in the end, his intervention was dealt with so conclusively by Kevin MacDonald (see here), that I saw no reason to discuss it further and abandoned that essay at the “skeleton” stage.  Peterson is, however, hard to ignore. As MacDonald put it, Peterson is indeed a “celebrity intellectual,” and one who, despite an occasionally overt philo-Semitism, has engaged in spirited defenses against some manifestations of cultural Marxism. This is admirable, and he is generally pleasing and interesting to watch his TV appearances. Watching and listening to these appearances with any frequency, it’s hard to escape Peterson’s key influences. The Canadian academic is both vocal and (remarkably) repetitive in naming them: summaries, quotes, and interpretations of Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, Solzhenitsyn, and Jung all feature very prominently in Peterson’s content.[1] It’s clear that all four men act as his foremost intellectual and personal heroes. But they share something else in common – they have all confronted the Jewish Question in a manner that quite clearly contradicts the view put forth by Peterson. This is not to say that everyone must follow all the ideas of their heroes, but it does call into question how carefully Peterson has both understood these writers and considered his own position on the Jews. The following essay is intended to tease out some problems and contradictions.

I’ve spent the last couple of months listening to Peterson’s lecture series on the Biblical stories, reading his 12 Rules for Life, and examining (and re-examining) his essay “On the So-Called Jewish Question.” I have to confess to finding his lecture series extremely strange. Listening to the audience question and answer sessions at the end of each lecture, it’s clear that Peterson has a sizeable Jewish following and that his lectures are, if not geared toward Jews, certainly holding great appeal for them. Part of this may be the fact that, for an ostensibly Christian apologist, thus far only one of Peterson’s sixteen lectures have concerned the New Testament. What I find particularly interesting about Peterson’s interpretation of these stories is that he extracts, in abstract psychoanalytic fashion, a series of self-help non-sequiturs without looking at how and why the stories were formulated in the first place, and how they have been understood by Jews during the many centuries since they were written. This is an especially ironic development because Peterson’s approach to these particular texts is rather like that of Jacques Derrida, the Jewish Marxist postmodernist he rebukes in 12 Rules for Life, who argued “there is nothing outside the text.” And it is quite unlike the suggestion of his hero Carl Jung, who, as Peterson notes in 12 Rules for Life, suggested that “if you cannot understand why someone did something, look at the consequences — and infer the motivation.”

Peterson doesn’t seem remotely interested in the psychological needs and motivations of the Jewish authors and readers of the stories, and, by his own admission (in the question and answer session following his discussion of the tale of Jacob and Esau) Peterson has never examined the Talmud to see how Jews have interacted with them.

This is certainly the case with the Book of Exodus. Peterson glosses over the barbarism of the Moses character and seems oblivious to evidence strongly suggesting the book was constructed as a response to a proliferation of Greek-Egyptian narratives in the third century B.C. about the eviction of subversive foreigners from the historical Nile Delta. Instead, Peterson presents the Moses character as someone in touch with a divine cosmic subconscious, who “bargains” with a largely benevolent and well-meaning deity that represents the future—god as a “judgmental father.” (In Peterson’s rendering of the development of religion, picturing the future as a “judgmental father” to whom we owe sacrifices is a stroke of genius.) In this approach, Peterson both borrows the methodology, and diverges from the conclusions, of the psychoanalytical examination of the Bible carried out by his hero Carl Jung, who, in his essays “Answer to Job” and “Christ, a Symbol of the Self,” characterized the Yahweh of the Torah as “savage,” “touchy,” “suspicious,” “two-faced,” “gratuitous,” “revolting,” “remorseless,” “brutal,” and “illogical.”[2]

Peterson’s obliviousness to the specificities of Jewish interpretations and uses of the texts he discusses is perhaps even more the case regarding the story of Jacob/Israel and Esau. Peterson sees the tale as a straightforward lesson in making the right sacrifices to achieve one’s goals and avoiding resentment when things don’t work out how you’d like them—an anodyne self-help platitude by any estimation. But how have Jews historically treated the story of one of their foremost Patriarchs?

It surely has great significance for any psychological rendering of the tale that Jacob translates as “usurper” or “he who cheats,” and that Jews have always conceptualized Esau as representing gentiles, especially Europeans, or the racial or cultural descendants of the Romans. Daniel Elazar, writing for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, comments that Esau displays “characteristics which are later to become part of the Jewish stereotype of non-Jews (“goyim”).” Meir Levin adds that “the rabbinic identification of Rome with the Biblical figure of Esau is basic to the traditional understanding of much of the relevant sections of Chumash Bareishis [Genesis].” Levin continues that the Talmud and later rabbinical commentaries presented Esau and Western civilization as sharing negative characteristics such as hypocrisy (Shocher Tov 14,3), individualism, and placing an emphasis on style over substance. Maimonides pictured Esau as an “evildoer” whose descendants were “Amalekites” who were “to be destroyed and their name blotted out.” Maimonides wrote that survivors of the Amalekites were “Rome and the Catholic Church.” Salo Baron writes that the idea that Europeans were the descendants of Esau was “widely accepted in medieval Jewry” along with the idea that the dominion of Edom-Rome would end with the coming of a Jewish messiah.[3] The Jewish-American History Foundation concurs that “Babylon, Rome, Edom, and Christianity are synonymous,” and remarks that the final end of Edom/descendants of Esau is interpreted from Jewish texts as meaning “that every one of the Mount (or House) of Esau may, or shall, be cut off by slaughter,” [Obadiah v.9] and will “perish forever.”

This interpretive pedigree is more than a little darker in tone than Jordan Peterson’s “clean your room” rendering. But it’s easy to see why Jews would applaud and promote the latter’s presentations. A takeaway message for Christian and atheist alike from Peterson’s lectures would be that these texts are full of rich and benevolent wisdom, with no mention of even the possibility of malignant intent or usage. As stated above, it’s highly likely that Jordan Peterson is naively ignorant of this interpretive pedigree, and there is nothing in his work or activism that suggests he has ever seriously engaged with Jewish cultural activity, or critical commentary on it (for all his bluster, I sincerely doubt he’s read a single sentence written by Kevin MacDonald). Indeed, if any reader wanted a serious, and novel, psychological profile of the Biblical stories, the third chapter of Kevin MacDonald’s A People That Shall Dwell Alone makes a succinct but powerful case for evolutionary aspects of the Tanakh. All things considered, I find it difficult to separate Peterson’s dubious approach to the lecture series from his 12 Rules for Life and later essay “On the So-Called Jewish Question.”

On a fundamental level, I believe that Peterson is hopelessly wrong in his approach to Jewish matters, and especially the issue of anti-Semitism. Since the opinion of an anonymous “anti-Semite” is likely to hold little sway with the celebrity intellectual, however, what follows is a critique of the latter essay by each of the four men whom Peterson holds most dear; by those we might, or he might, even call his intellectual fathers. So Jordan, it’s time for a father-son talk.

A Reply from Solzhenitsyn

Jordan Peterson references Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in almost every interview, talk, or text he delivers. His admiration for the Russian author is considerable and is made clear in 12 Rules for Life. In 12 Rules, Peterson refers (p.115) to Solzhenitsyn as “the great writer, the profound, spirited defender of truth.” He writes (p.116) that Solzhenitsyn was an extremely brave man whose courage was one of the reasons for the fall of Communism. He (p. 140) wrote “definitively and profoundly about the horrors of the twentieth century,” and (p.152) “wrote the truth, his truth, hard-learned through his own experiences.”

Solzhenitsyn came to mind immediately when I read the early part of Peterson’s essay “On the So-Called Jewish Question.” The title itself is almost unforgivably flippant and dismissive, and illustrative of a deep ignorance of history. In essence, Peterson appears to deny the possibility or reality of fundamental clashes of interest between Europeans and Jews, both in the past and in the present, along with a rejection of the notion that these clashes have historically revolved around issues of identity—especially the expression of Jewish identity in Western civilization. These issues are what is essentially meant by the term “the Jewish Question.”

In addition, Peterson’s scorn for what he dismissively terms “identity politics” may be rhetorically fashionable among civic nationalists willfully ignorant of the determinant role of race and ethnicity in world history, but it’s largely meaningless considering that identity (racial, religious, cultural) has influenced politics from time immemorial. All politics are ultimately rooted in identity, and all identities are ultimately political. Given serious reflection, Peterson’s position may be deemed even more harmful and dangerous to Whites than the Left-Liberal position, because while the latter is merely hypocritical in denying the positive aspect of ethnic identity to Whites (i.e., denial of the right to ask the question “is this good for my group”), Peterson would have us believe that all our deep interests are essentially synonymous or at least reconcilable, and that conflicts based on group interests are both essentially wrong and in some way escapable. This can only be described as a facile understanding of the development and manifestation of ethnic conflict.

In Solzhenitsyn’s Russia, the cultural and political clash of Jewish and European identities was, of course, both inescapable (beginning with large-scale Jewish settlement and subsequent population growth), and utterly catastrophic. So one has to ask how Solzhenitsyn, with his “truth, hard-learned through his own experiences” might respond to Peterson’s dismissal of the Jewish Question in relation to “identity politics.”

Fortunately, we know exactly how Solzhenitsyn would reply to the Canadian celebrity intellectual because he answered an almost identical situation in 1985, when he came under fire for implying that Jewish identity played an influential and negative role in the Bolshevik revolution. In particular, many Jewish critics came forth to declare that there had been no such “Jewish Question” in the development of the revolution, and that Solzhenitsyn was an anti-Semite for declaring the opposite. Solzhenitsyn’s reply now comes across the decades, speaking directly to a man who would lay claim to be his protégé:

A Jewish Question existed and was a burning issue. But at that time hundreds of authors, including Jews, wrote about this; at that time, precisely the omission of mentioning the Jewish Question was considered a manifestation of anti-Semitism — and it would be unworthy for an historian of that era to pretend that that question did not exist. … My task is to write true historical research on the Russian Revolution. [emphasis added]

Solzhenitsyn, as is well known, did this and more. After publishing Two Hundred Years Together, Solzhenitsyn was accused of anti-Semitism for asserting that pogroms against Jews in Russia were rare, spontaneous, and originated “from below” rather than being government-sponsored. He was further accused of anti-Semitism for implying that Jews avoided conscription and, in particular, frontline military service. Both fall into the category of thought that Peterson dismisses in his essay as “conspiratorial claims based on ethnic identity.” And yet it’s a testament to the lingering vitality of the historical profession that more recent archival research and published studies (from Cambridge University Press and Princeton University Press) have vindicated both of Solzhenitsyn’s claims.[4]

Peterson also caricatures the critique of Jews as being ignorant of the role of IQ. In reality, however, most historical ‘anti-Semites’ have struck a balance between the role of intelligence/capability in the acquisition by Jews of what may be termed sociopolitical gatekeeping positions, and the role of ethnocentrism in the further development and ultimate consequences of Jewish demographic over-representations resulting from Jews in these positions acting according to their perceived ethnic interests.

Solzhenitsyn, in Two Hundred Years Together, provides many examples where Jews were given equal opportunities based on ability and became over-represented in several key areas of public life. The most widespread and justified concerns, however, where not about how these over-representations were achieved, but about the potential consequences of Jewish over-representations in aspects of Russian life. In one example from 1870, Solzhenitsyn discusses the introduction of municipal reforms:

Initially it was proposed to restrict Jewish representation among town councillors and in the municipal executive councils by fifty percent, but because of objections by the Minister of Internal Affairs, the City Statute of 1870 had reduced the maximal share to one third; further, Jews were forbidden from occupying the post of mayor. It was feared that otherwise Jewish internal cohesion and self-segregation would allow them to obtain a leading role in town institutions and give them an advantage in resolution of public issues. [emphasis added]

Solzhenitsyn was also acutely aware of the role of revenge in Jewish political choices and actions. Regarding food shortages and famines, he notes:

What would you expect from peasants in the Tambov Guberniya if, during the heat of the suppression of the great peasant uprising in this Central-Russian black-earth region, the dismal den of the Tambov Gubcom was inhabited by masterminds of grain allotments, secretaries of Gubcom P. Raivid and Pinson, and by the head of the propaganda department, Eidman? (A. G. Shlikhter, whom we remember from Kiev in 1905, was there as well, this time as the chairman of the Executive Committee of the guberniya.) Y. Goldin was the Foodstuffs Commissar of the Tambov Guberniya; it was he who triggered the uprising by exorbitant confiscations of grain, whereas one N. Margolin, commander of a grain confiscation squad, was famous for whipping the peasants who failed to provide grain. (And he murdered them too.) According to Kakurin, who was the chief of staff to Tukhachevsky, a plenipotentiary representative of the Cheka headquarters in the Tambov Guberniya during that period was Lev Levin. Of course, not only Jews were in it! However, when Moscow took the suppression of the uprising into her own hands in February 1921, the supreme command of the operation was assigned to Efraim Sklyansky, the head of “Interdepartmental Anti-Banditry Commission,”—and so the peasants, notified about that with leaflets, were able to draw their own conclusions.

And what should we say about the genocide on the river Don, when hundreds of thousands of the flower of Don Cossacks were murdered? What should we expect from the Cossack memories when we take into consideration all those unsettled accounts between a revolutionary Jew and a Don Cossack? In August 1919, the Volunteer Army took Kiev and opened several Chekas and found the bodies of those recently executed; Shulgin composed nominal lists of victims using funeral announcements published in the reopened Kievlyanin; one can’t help noticing that almost all names were Slavic. … Materials produced by the Special Investigative Commission in the South of Russia provide insights into the Kiev Cheka and its command personnel (based on the testimony of a captured Cheka interrogator): “The headcount of the ‘Cheka’ staff varied between 150 and 300. … Percentage -wise, there was 75% Jews and 25% others, and those in charge were almost exclusively Jews.” Out of twenty members of the Commission, i.e., the top brass who determined people’s destinies, fourteen were Jews.

Peterson’s remark that “high IQ is associated with Openness to Experience, which is in turn associated with liberal/left-leaning political proclivities” is simply insufficient for a serious analysis of the fact that many intelligent and capable Jews cohered, as Jews, around each other in late-nineteenth-century Russia with the primary goal of destroying Russian culture and the Russian state, and engaging in the mass murder of perceived historical oppressors and enemies—something infinitely more extreme than the term “liberal/left-leaning political proclivities” could ever possibly convey. Solzhenitsyn cites I. O. Levin as writing:

There is no doubt that Jewish representation in the Bolshevik and other parties which facilitated “expanding of revolution” — Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, etc. — with respect to both general Jewish membership and Jewish presence among the leaders, greatly exceeds the Jewish share in the population of Russia.  This is an indisputable fact; while its reasons should be debated, its factual veracity is unchallengeable and its denial is pointless; and a certainly convincing explanation of this phenomenon by Jewish inequality before the March revolution … is still not sufficiently exhaustive.

One could reasonably and similarly surmise that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn would concur with the assessment that Jordan Peterson’s explanation of Jewish “over-representation in positions of authority, competence and influence (including revolutionary movements)” as being due to the association of “high IQ with Openness to Experience, which is in turn associated with liberal/left-leaning political proclivities” is, to say the least, not sufficiently exhaustive. And it is at this point that we pass the floor to Fyodor Dostoevsky.

Go to Part 2 of 3.

[1] Jung is perhaps the most important figure in Peterson’s thought, understandable given their overlapping professional interest in psychology and psychoanalysis. The Canadian has most notably brought these interests to bear in his series of lectures on the psychological significance of the Biblical stories.

[2] All quotes taken from Anthony Storr (ed), The Essential Jung: Selected Writings (London: Fontana, 1998). These traits are so manifest that Europeans/Christians have struggled for many centuries with their distaste for the God of the Old Testament. An excellent recent example of the Christian attempt to wrestle with this problem, and an overview of the history of debate on the issue, is Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan’s Did God Really Command Genocide? Coming to Terms with the Justice of God (Michigan: Baker Books, 2014).

[3] Baron, S. W. (1934). “The Historical Outlook of Maimonides.” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, Vol. 6, No. 5, 24.

[4] See John Doyle Klier, Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) and Derek J. Penslar, Jews and the Military: A History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013).

22 replies
  1. anarchyst
    anarchyst says:

    It is “dead white gentile males” who came up with the United States of America, its Declaration of Independence, and has formulated the ONLY Constitution in the world that LIMITS the role of government, starting out with the idea that our “rights” are not granted by government, but are “endowed by our creator” and are inherent in our merely being human.
    All throughout history, governments have granted “rights” to their “subjects”–their notion of “rights” actually being “permissions” from government.
    Yes, we have strayed from the concept of government being subordinate, needing permission from the people to function, but the central idea is still there for those of us who THINK for ourselves.
    The RIGHTS we have are the RIGHTS we take, and jealously guard for ourselves and our posterity.
    Contrast that with judaism, which condones the slaughter of innocents, merely for being the “wrong ethnicity”, and the promotion of slavery, along with their talmud, which reduces the “value” of gentiles to the status of “livestock” to be used to “serve the jews”.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      “…Contrast that with judaism, which condones the slaughter of innocents, merely for being the “wrong ethnicity”, and the promotion of slavery, along with their talmud, which reduces the “value” of gentiles to the status of “livestock” to be used to “serve the jews”…”

      The Founding Fathers of the US did consider the Indians the “wrong ethnicity” and called them “merciless Indian savages” in the Declaration of Independence. As for slavery, they were all slaveholders and saw no evil in that. In fact the Whites who settled North America identified themselves with the ancient Israelites and the Natives with the ancient Canaanites and saw no wrong to act on them the same way as their admired Biblical models.

      • Curmudgeon
        Curmudgeon says:

        “As for slavery, they were all slaveholders and saw no evil in that.”
        I’m in no position to state categorically that all were slaveholders. Some, such as George Wythe, did see evil in it and openly opposed it.
        That aside, slavery had existed in Europe for 2000 years, and by any objective standard, indentured servants were slaves. There were plenty of indentured servants from the British Isles, primarily Irish and Scots. It was only after freed slave, Anthony Johnson’s successful challenge to determine the end of indenture that the African slave trade took off.

      • Charles Frey
        Charles Frey says:

        You may have missed the extensive prior coverage of the slave trade here. Who, when, how, and who owned the ships in Britain, Rhode Island and the Caribbean.

        Social norms evolve, except those anchored in the Talmud; as exemplified by the Israeli press reported 500,000 + adults funeral cortege of that certifiably insane Sephardic Chief Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, who, until his end, spewed a litany of disparaging, Talmudic remarks about the ” sub-human goyim, usefully plow-pulling donkeys, producing food for them, serving them, while they sit there and eat like ” effendis ” ” By all means check on my almost verbatim paraphrasing !

        Russia emancipated its slaves, having been bettered to the status of serfs, in 1861, without a Civil War. That ” despicable “, ” reactionary ” Prussia in 1810, while the ” progressive ” Jews of Newport were still full at it, and getting better.

        Even Holland, as you must know, brought home 55,000 Moluccans to prevent them from being murdered by the remainder of the Indonesian former colony, for having been the Hollanders’ preferred colonial enforcers. Values change.

    • Charlie
      Charlie says:

      That was true before diversity. Now the United States was built by the black man on the black man’s back

  2. Sophie Johnson
    Sophie Johnson says:

    I am very surprised that you bothered with this man, Dr Joyce. I have just had a go at reading his ‘On the so-called “Jewish Question” ‘:

    But a deep distaste made me back off as early in the piece as the paragraph beginning thus: ‘First, psychologically speaking: why do the reactionary conspiracy theorists …’.

    This man spills a pay-load of the tiredest and limpest insolence that the Jews themselves devised long ago: They, exquisite beings of refinement and light, are the persecuted victims of us, the brute-stupid sub-humans who cannot but be addressed thus: ‘… you now have someone to hate (and, what’s worse, with a good conscience) so your unrecognized resentment and cowardly and incompetent failure to deal with the world forthrightly can find a target…’.

    Why read on? Like the desperate prostitute, Petersen has hit the road with it all hanging out. One knows instantly that he is offering every trick in the trade; nothing is too demeaning for him. Did they come running to throw money at him? I doubt it. His brand is just too old and too tacky – down-at-heel backstreets stuff.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Petersen reminds me of the two bit Journalism freshman, who is taught how to change a significant or major opinion on anything, to please his editor/publisher. First agree with the major public opinion, then introduce some well reasoned or rather rationalized doubt, pursuant to Jewish logic, then go for the kill, coming to an entirely different conclusion: as ” just brilliantly demonstrated “.

  3. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    “As MacDonald put it, Peterson is indeed a “celebrity intellectual…”

    “The fatal thing about academic celebrities is that their mediocre minds are extolled as great by credulous youth devoid of judgement.”
    Schopenhauer (edited).

    Schopenhauer also said that Jewish thought can in no way be confused with reason. He seemed to think that their thinking was more akin to astrology than astronomy. More magic than metaphysics. Regarding his hero Nietzsche one wonders if he’s ever really read Human, All Too Human, particularly Aphorism 265, which spells out what his hero (and not just his hero) thought about what makes European man, or, to be blunt, White men, so special.

    Anyway, in the course of my life encounters with Jewish intellectuals is a lot like coming across someone giving a long and boring lecture at the foot of a mountain about Nature while on my way to go mountain climbing. Needless to say, their attempts to make me feel bad about being White have been unsuccessful.

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      All – ALL – WN’s, White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis and the KKK that make the news, ie; are filtered through Jewish Supremacy’s mouthpiece, the MSM, are manufactured by The ADL/$PLC and their toadies in The FBI, which they in effect control.
      How do they do it? Two words,
      Probation and Parole.

      With complete access to The FBI’s Database they simply look up poor Whites who are either on probation or up for parole and offer them alternatives to incarceration, under strict conditions of secrecy, of course. But, we live in the age of leaks, so….

      Every wonder why they just stand there at these “rallies” (ie; Jewish-orchestrated anti-White pogroms) looking like a bunch of mooks?

      This fact needs to go viral, yesterday. It’s because more and more are finding this out that they probably won’t risk another C’ville (though you never know; after all, it’s all they’ve got).

      Still, that won’t keep them from what they are doing now with this obvious False Flag regarding mail bombs sent to the Clinton’s , etc. False Flags, like Fake News, is the product of a Fake Culture. Every day more people are beginning to see and question the 0th Commandment of Thou Shalt Not Notice Our Behavioral Patterns. Every day more people are developing the antibodies to help them fight off the Jewish age old disease of not living in Reality.

      • TJ
        TJ says:

        I did not know about parolees. I assumed over the years that any group with flags or uniforms was kosher.

        Comments are pure (((LA Times))) gold [filth]. YouTube comments tend to be highly in our favor.

        Does anyone know whether or not the Glen Miller murders really happened?

  4. Joseph
    Joseph says:

    FYODOR DOSTOEVSKY 1821-1881 – One time tsarist army officer evolved from a nebulous anti-Semite into a sharply-defined one, sustained by a measure of hypocrisy. Jews never fit, nor could fit into is vision for
    Russia. Evidently too low on his action agenda to warrant much attention early in his career, he began tentatively attacking Jews in 1873. By 1876 he was on the attack against “Yid” financiers for conniving to
    restore serfdom and bring about a ‘Judaized world.’ Outside of Russia, he saw them already hard at work toward that end. “They would have you believe that they do not rule over Europe, that they do not manage,
    at least over there, the stock exchanges, and consequently the politics, the internal affairs, the moral life of the States.”

    Soon thereafter he denied any personal trace of anti-Semitism. Responding to Jewish journalist Arkady Kovner, he wrote: “But I tell you now that I am not an enemy of the Jews at all and never have been.
    During the 50 years of my life I have found that Jews, whether good or bad, won’t ever sit down at the same table with a Russian, while a Russian feels no hesitation about sitting down with a Jew. So who hates whom? And what sort of an idea is it that the Jews are a nation of the insulted and injured? On the contrary, it is the Russians who have been humiliated by the Jews in every respect, because the Jews, besides enjoying almost complete equality of rights (they can even be officers, which in Russia is
    everything), having their own rights besides, their own law, their own statute, their own status quo that is protected by the Russian law themselves.”

    Consider a more intimate letter sent to his wife in August 1879, while he was ‘taking the cure’ at Ems, Germany. Upset over the price of a pair of opera glasses he wrote: “But then, in Russia, there never were such swindling shopkeepers as there are now in Germany. It is the Yids again, the Yids have taken over everything, and they cheat like mad, and I mean cheat.”

    From Ems he also wrote Konstantin Pobedonostsev, whose solution to Russia’s ‘Jewish problem’ was the disappearance of all Russian Jews. Dostoevsky complained: “…and mind you, literally half of the visitors
    here are Yids…in my view, Germany – at any rate, Berlin was being taken over by the Yids.”

    The notion of letting the Jews break free of the Pale of Settlement particularly rattled him and he declared they would seize the opportunity to ‘invade the countryside and make life worse than under the Tartar

    Jews were behind just about every attempt to disrupt Europe’s order, he concluded: “The Jews have everything to gain from every cataclysm and coup d’etat…and only profit from anything that serves to undermine gentile society.”

    BUT WERE THEY GOOD FOR THE JEWS? Over 150 Historical Figures Viewed From a Jewish Perspective
    Elliot Rosenberg, Carol Publishing Group, 1997

  5. William K
    William K says:

    Listen. Jews do not understand their own Bible and never have. For example: the Trinity is there plain as day. Abraham worshipped El. It is firmly established by archaeology THAT EL IS THE GOD OF FAMILY PATRIARCHS.

    YHWH is his SON the Thunder God. Hence his struggle with Baal under Elijah. Baal was a rival thunder god who had no business in Israel. Jesus explicitly acts as the Thunder God on several occasions.

    And like the Holy Spirit, Asherah lurks around in the background. Notice in the climatic fight between Elijah and the Prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel the Prophets of Asherah are also present. And yet it is ONLY the Prophets of Baal who are executed.

    The Bible is God’s word. It is inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is a book of monotheism mostly written by polytheists. There’s no way something that dramatic is an accident.

    • Curmudgeon
      Curmudgeon says:

      Not only Jews:
      Exodus 20 King James Version (KJV)
      20 And God spake all these words, saying,
      2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
      3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
      4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
      5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
      6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

      Seems pretty clear to me that YHWH is jealous of the other Gods.

    • Charlie
      Charlie says:

      Common myth that Christians and Jews share the Old Testament. Jews do not subscribe to the Old Testament. Do not confuse Hebrews with Jews.

      • Curmudgeon
        Curmudgeon says:

        The myth of Christians and Jews sharing the “Old Testament” was started by the Jews. They pull the same BS on the Muslims with the “faiths of Abraham” bit. It is clear in the “New Testament” that the G-d of Phariseeism/Talmudic Judaism is the devil, also known as THWH the Destroyer of Thunder G-d.
        Jews do not recognize the “Old Testament” as “Old”, because for them, the “New Testament” doesn’t exist. That doesn’t mean Jews don’t subscribe to its contents. How much weight it is given in relation to the Talmud, is a different issue.

        Hebrews vs Jews? Depends to whom you’re talking. At the end of the day, both are descendants of Abraham.

  6. Rob Bottom
    Rob Bottom says:

    Thank you for this highly entertaining rebuttal, Mr. Joyce! I can’t wait to read the rest. I wonder how Peterson will respond? If he didn’t want to touch such a controversial topic then he should have just admitted that up front. That’d be less shameful than repeatedly dismissing the existence of Jewish identity politics, or excusing Jewish nepotism under the guise of meritocracy, all while regularly espousing the importance of figures like Solzhenitsyn.

    Like many others I had high hopes for Peterson when he stood up against the transsexual astroturfing campaign, and was appalled by the media’s smear campaign against him. He confronted the gender pay gap with common sense and amusing personal anecdotes, and even brought up the racial IQ problem, which also impressed me. However, it wasn’t long before I saw him singing Israel’s praises at the “Canadians for Balfour 100” event, where he equated any criticism of Jews or Israel to antisemitism. This came as a shock and was very disappointing for me. The months-long massacre along the Gaza border this summer will have called for some serious self-reflection on his part.

    As you point out, if his supposed “heroes” could see how he has dodged and weaved around this issue, they would excoriate him. We (or his own followers) will likely have to poke and prod him into responding to these brow-raising quotes from Solzhenitsyn. He could begin by apologizing to those of us he let down for thinking he would grapple with any topic as honestly as he did the transsexual one.

  7. Ole C G Olesen
    Ole C G Olesen says:

    I thoroughly enjoy Your Publications !
    It is of great HELP in the strugle with the Jewish Tribe and all its brainwashed …or BRIBED … proselytes .

    Likewise : The Comment section has some true Pearls … here n there .. 🙂 !

  8. Curmudgeon
    Curmudgeon says:

    I have always been suspicious of celebrity intellectuals. In the Canadian context, celebrity intellectuals are those who will gently push the boundaries on one narrow topic, but otherwise be very mainstream. Peterson is no exception. His real (gentle) push is the misuse of language. The psychopathic snowflakes that demand the corruption of language and by extension, science by insisting on the use of multiple genders and imagined victimization, are easy targets. Peterson is only stating, using “academic freedom”, the obvious, and what the majority of people think. Whether the majority accept his rationalization of the statements is an entirely different question.

  9. Rerevisionist
    Rerevisionist says:

    Dr Joyce is mistaken to think (as he seems to) that Solzhenitsyn was a ‘hero’ of Peterson. There are (or were) videos on Youtube showing Peterson on stage being offered a copy of ‘200 Years Together’, and clearly uncertain what to make of Solzhenitsyn. With the increasing Jewish squeeze on Internet, Youtubes are disappearing and serious researchers need to download their own copies, or ask someone else to do this.

  10. Tarrasik
    Tarrasik says:

    Great article. Petersen is like so many half-assed intellectuals. The benefits they receive for joining the Jewish good goy coalition makes them look the other way.

    Intellectuals like Peterson fail to address anti-semitic arguments on the merits. For example, Susannah Heschel wrote The Aryan Jesus, a lengthy condemnation of the 1930’s German efforts to redefine Jesus as an Aryan. I bought the book hoping to get a coherent explanation of just why Jesus must be a Jew. But, surprise, Heschel doesn’t spend any time rebutting the German theologians. Instead she documents which German theologians were involved, and what Nazi organizations they belonged to, liberally sprinkled with a tirade of anti-German hate and name calling.

    A very good case to be made that Jesus was not a Jew. I recommend reading Christ Was Not A Jew by Jacob Elon Conner. Key points include the fact that Jesus was from Galilee of the Gentiles, an area not part of Judea. Galilee was emptied of all Israelites during the destruction of the Kingdoms of Judea and Israel. It was repopulated by Persians (or Aryans), who were later forcibly converted to Judaism. So Jesus was born into the house of David, which fulfills NT prophecy. But he was not biologically of that house. The two NT lineages go to his stepfather Joseph. There is no mention of the ethnicity of his mother. There is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus was a physical Jew. The Jewish priests claimed Jesus was a Samaritan (John 8). They had access to Jewish genealogic records, especially for the royal descendants, and would have known if he was a Jew. Moreover, if Jewish, they could have tried him in their courts, rather than forcing the Romans to execute him.

    Jesus may in fact have been a dualist, regarding Yahweh as the satanic demi-urge. There is really no other possible explanation for Jesus calling father of the Jews the devil: “He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” John 8:44.

    Many OT Bible verses depict Yahweh as a dragon.

    “Smoke went up from his nostrils, and devouring fire from his mouth; glowing coals flamed forth from him.” Psalms 18:8
    “Out of his mouth go flaming torches; sparks of fire leap forth. Out of his nostrils comes forth smoke, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes. His breath kindles coals, and a flame comes forth from his mouth.” Job 41:20

    The Bible refers to Yahweh intentionally blinding people so they will not turn to Jesus and be healed. Yahweh commands Isaiah:

    “Go and tell this people, Hearing you hear, but do not understand; and seeing you see, but do not know. Make the heart of this people fat, and make his ears heavy, and shut his eyes, that he not see with his eyes, and hear with his ears, and understand with his heart, and turn back, and one heals him.” Isaiah 6:10

    “For again Isaiah said, “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I [Jesus] would heal them.” John 12

    “… the god of this age has blinded the thoughts of the unbelieving, so that the brightness of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn on them.” II Cor 4:4

    I believe a large segment of the early Christian community, as exemplified by Marcion, was Aryan, dualistic, and explicitly anti-Judaic.

    Petersen avoids the JQ because he knows he’s out of his depth.

  11. ann fitzgerald
    ann fitzgerald says:

    Petersen commented on one of his youtube videos that there is something wrong with women who don’t wish to have children!

Comments are closed.