The Occult Wants You

Or, at least, it wants your money.

I won’t pretend to be well-informed on the ins and outs of Gnosticism or occult religious practices, but I do know that when you put forward a philosophy that effectively denies the existence of evil, you are doing the work of Satan.

I have Vox to thank for this clarity, contained in his recent work, Jordanetics (Kindle).

I, like many other men, have been hungry for a suitable father figure for most of my life. It’s difficult for me to not place men I admire into that mental role–and probably impossible for most.

Initially, also like many others, I was impressed with Peterson’s statements about Bill C-16. I looked at those who were attacking him, and thought him to be an ally for free speech. I assumed that this alliance extended into the larger culture wars.

However, as time wore on, and Peterson grew in public stature, he revealed himself to not be an ally, neither for free speech, nor culture, nor anything else valued by Western European tradition.

Whether it’s hypocritically deplatforming Faith Goldy or tweeting horrifying SJW advice to now-Justice Kavanaugh, he is not a man that values the West.

In Jordanetics, Vox goes over Peterson’s writings, and comes to a fairly damning conclusion about what the man is actually promoting. He makes his case carefully and meticulously.

I found myself laughing at the start of Chapter 3. It was deliciously absurd, or so I thought. By Chapter 6, I was no longer laughing. I realized that what I was reading was deadly serious.

You may not believe in the spiritual realm. But you deny the existence of evil at your own peril.

Read Jordanetics.

2 thoughts on “The Occult Wants You

  1. Jarrod Woodard

    I have all together listened to at least 100 hours of Peterson speak. On reflection about whether he believes in the existence of evil or not… I am not certain.

    Some things he has said would lead me to believe he does but he never comes at these things from a philosophically rigorous position so I can’t be certain. That ambiguity is something that I noticed and accepted when I first began listening to him. I told myself, ‘well, he is psychologist, not a philosopher and he is a college professor. This means he has spent decades among the corrupt and either became one of them or has adapted to that environment, at a price. To wrap it up… I did not expect philosophic rigor from him and found the things he had to share interesting regardless. Though there was always that part of me warning me about his lack of grounding and I’m glad I listened to it. I never put him on a pedestal so It is easy to see him in the light.

Comments are closed.