"Bloody Nature-Worshipers Will Take Everything from You!!" w/ Jordan Peterson 

Yeah... Except I'm Brazilian and can't access it. Will we get the full episode on RU-vid, please?

Thrsday & co., how about hosting a debate between Dr Peterson (or a scientist of his choosing) and a faithful son of the Church who is an atmospheric scientist? If you give a platform to Peterson's niche theories, wouldn't you want to give at least as much air time to the Magisterium and the scientific consensus? Would you create a sensational clip of a six-day creationist harping on and on about the "evolutionists"? Certainly the theory of evolution has led to incorrect anthropology in some cases, but we know better than to therefore conclude that the entire theory is wrong.

Ask the Nature Cult if its OK to believe that "Being born a male or born a female is a beautiful part of nature." After all, biological is natural.

SAME!!! I'm so happy Matt got JP on

Same

So true! Same here!

Same

same here. It was a class he gave when he talked about the snake in Eden. It was like a light went on inside me

That's old pantheism for you, brought up again in new ways.

A ridiculous ad hominem is what it is.. No one of any political persuasion who knows a whit about environmental policy takes this kind of talk seriously..

@@paulmitchell2916 you should look up the concept of "degrowth" in many of the most prominent environmentalist publications. You may be unpleasantly surprised.

@@shaulkramer7425 Degrowth is a great idea, and very harmonious with Christian faith. Nonetheless it's just one strand of environmentalism, and is based on political and economic, not religious beliefs. Definitely no advocacy of child sacrifice or anything like it.

​@@paulmitchell2916 you need to do some reading or listen to knowledgeable people who can properly inform you. It is incredibly antithetical to the Christian faith, contrary to your assumptions. The degrowth agenda would ultimately cause countless deaths amd signficiant suffering. It's a demonic, antihuman agenda cloaked and veiled in the guise of good stewardship of the natural world.

Same, it’s as if nature worship is like the standard answer for most atheists/agnostics/spiritual but not religious types to the question of belief

Sounds like you degraded

Same here

@@thekingchrissyg who do you say Christ is?

I’m glad you escaped!

Yeah. That’s pretty spot on.

He got that from the Old Testament btw...

It's actually []. Look it up if you do not believe me. Every tenet.

If you haven't, your wiser than him.. because it's ridiculous..

@@paulmitchell2916 Those that do not know history (of religions) are doomed to repeat it

He’s even worse the longer i listen. When he says 1 short haul flight per person that still amounts to a hell of a lot of flights for those who do fly. 80% of the world never fly. Of the 20% who do only about 4% fly abroad. That leaves the rest with about 3 billion worth of short haul flights to dish out amongst themselves. The guys analysis skills are awful.

@@Theactivepsychos Do you mean that I'm in the 4%? Wow. I'm a retired bartender, who lives in a one bedroom basement apartment, and I don't have that much money, and I've travelled abroad numerous times. I save up my money and then take a trip somewhere. Short haul flights can cost around $100 bucks, well within the reach of most people in the developed and developing world. That's a lot of people who have access to those flights who don't take them for reasons that have nothing to do with their ability to use them. Besides, he's not talking about their availability. He's talking about how they want to restrict them, except for themselves of course. Sort of like the climate activists who fly to Davos, in their private jets, to pontificate how the use of fossil fuels, by the masses, is going to destroy the planet. Bloody hypocrites is what they are.

@@JackHaveman52 Yeah if you fly multiple times you’re in the top 4%. I don’t understand what you’re getting at they aren’t restricting people they’re just asking people to restrict themselves if they care. If they don’t care you don’t have to do anything and carry on.

@@Theactivepsychos My point is that those statistics make me sound like one of the elites. If you told that to the people in my town, they'd laugh. Now, you're gaslighting me by telling me that I don't care. You don't know me so you're basing that opinion on ONE data point. A really fair and unbiased opinion that. Especially in Europe, they're considering legislation to restrict short haul flights. Google it and find out. That's not asking anymore. That's force. Just like telling people that they can't use gas stoves. What makes you think that barbecues won't be next? Another example is the forced killing of 200,000 cows in Ireland to save the planet. Ireland isn't the only country in Europe doing similar things. The Netherlands, Germany and France have all seen policies restricting the use of fertilisers and even the appropriation of select farms. There been huge demonstrations over it. 3 years ago, the government of Sri Lanka outlawed the use of fertilisers as a part of their green policies. There was a 40% decrease in crop yields and the people went hungry. Inflation went from 5% to over 130% in one year. It caused a revolution and the government was replaced. In every case, it's the little guy that gets screwed all in the name of "if you care you'll comply" thinking. That's my point.

Maybe they gave up, peddling BS. Heil Covid! *clicks boots

...yet 😂

Astonishing

I'm still shocked!

That’s because of the algorithm. Ppl will hear and see what they want to. Which benefits RU-vid.

Hey @Barrelagedfaith ! I think that's what Peterson was getting at in this vid when he mentioned "We learn." I understood him to be meaning, "We learn how to better use resources to accommodate growing populations without neglecting the longevity of our world."

@@thenazarenecatholic Sounds great. I am not really judging his complete thinking on the matter, but WHAT I am asking for is his complete thinking which doesn't come through enough when he is interviewed about our relation to God's Creation and the Cosmic Temple of which we are a royal priesthood. Hopefully it will come or perhaps I have missed it in other interviews

@@barrelagedfaith I strongly hope despite your mention of 'discipline' which is just a formalized and sophisticated method of survival against artificially unfavorable conditions that you recognize differences between ascetism and survivalism. Former can't exist without being complemented by some form of what you term 'consumerism'.

What’s the solution then? Because for better or worse fossil fuels are the life blood of human civilization. We’re not just going to get rid of them.

I wholeheartedly agree with your statement!

Na

Protestant problems

Spot on. New Polity are in a league of their own.

Tells the truth

Jordan Peterson is only informed on psychology. Even if you don't believe the overwhelming evidence that humans are driving climate change, it's easy to verify that Peterson is dead wrong about estrogen in soy causing any sort of breast augmentation in males. He's such an antiscience goon.

Does he still work with the DW? Or is he going solo?

What you just said about Jordan Peterson is only slightly more insane than the nonsense that comes out of his mouth.

​@@yokobono3324another idealpolitik contrarian who somehow cynically doesn't have an ounce of cynicism and thinks none of the above is insidious or weird, did you even watch the clip, or are you just not capable of seeing the big picture? perhaps you've not lived long enough?

Yeah I hear it maybe once a month. I always say: thanks for the lecture Thanos

He’s even worse the longer I listen. When he says 1 short haul flight per person that still amounts to a hell of a lot of flights for those who do fly. 80% of the world never fly. Of the 20% who do only about 4% fly abroad. That leaves the rest with about 3 billion worth of short haul flights to dish out amongst themselves. The guys analysis skills are awful.

@@Theactivepsychos WTF are you blabbing about. If 20% of the world flies, and everybody in the world gets one short haul flight every three years. That means that the people who fly get to fly less than twice each year. Can you do math?

@@andysedlak1534 on average. 68% fly less than one short haul flight a year, 10% of flyers make 60% of all flights. It’s not gonna be difficult to reign in those flights and it’ll affect a small number of people. Add to this almost 6M flights a year are either totally or 90% empty, which could be vastly reduced by removing the minimum plane taxiing rental, and I think there’s plenty of flights can be made. There will also be unseen efficiency innovation that will grow super fast over the next 10 years for all travel types and communication is being revolutionised so the roughly 20% of business flyers will likely reduce. Climate change might even reduce the number of the 76% of flyers who are simply recreationally flying. It’s not as bad as it sounds really.

@@Theactivepsychos Why would you even want people to fly less?

@@andysedlak1534 so when I go on holiday I don’t have to put up with nobheads

What a beautiful words

Very insightful comment. Amen

Amen

It doesn't represent the faith well. The catholic church has been consistent in its stance on climate change being a grave moral issue that threatens commitments to human life, dignity, and security.

​@@mcable217is right. It can't be written off as a "Francis thing." John Paul II and Benedict XVI were consistent on this, too. This clickbait video and viewers' uncritical acceptance of it are sad examples of shrinking the faith into one's political ideology. I know that the Church's stances on natural science aren't infallible, but at least give her a fair hearing on this platform.

Amen. Trotting in Paul Ehrlich is a straw man.

This is true! If governments would stop lining their pockets with taxpayer funds, the world’s leaders could eliminate poverty. The problem isn’t lack of funds, it’s uneven distribution of the world’s goods. People in rich countries could live with a lot less, but the powers that be are too greedy to try it. Most companies are out to make the biggest profit possible and could care less about the plight of poorer countries. But, Capitalism has pulled more people out of poverty than any other economic system, so it’s not all bad.

@@suew4609 How then about living with only what is required to survive (determined by governments turning scientific findings into law that can't be even questioned as purportedly reflecting ultimate 'scientific' truth)? The very way human metabolism works will introduce time dependencies that will compound over time, leading to adoption of a militarized lifestyle not only in terms of labor Marx wanted to militarize (not recognizing that King Frederick William I and his son Frederick II already did that in multiple German-speaking countries) but any human activity. Not that I would imagine student of communist activist would be able to formulate more nuanced insight...

The Catholic Church swallowed up wef funds and changed the rules about what to eat to fast during lent. It’s a nice quote. But. As usual, without context.

​@-astrangerontheinternet6687 how did the Catholic Church change the rules on fasting during Lent? I must have missed that bit.

On this question, Peterson submits to ideological talking points and the sound of his own voice. The man is high on his own supply.

Christain’s ought to care about the world we live in and not litter and be promotive of various clean ups, however the initiative to ban fossil fuels and radically transform our way of life is backed up by little evidence.

This is a common fallacy. You achieve an end through means. We can have the same end in mind, but disagree with each other's means. Let A and B be two individuals with ends and means E(A), M(A), E(B), M(B), respectively. What you're saying is: If M(A) ≠ M(B) => E(A) ≠ E(B) Let α and β be two different paths that lead to φ. If A goes through α and B goes through β, then both get to Φ. Therefore, we're forced to conclude E(A) = E(B) But M(A) ≠ M(B), which contradicts your hypothesis.

@@MATTMRN But how did communists, who were always obsessed by industrial progress and modernity, switched sides and hijacked what was previously christian position? And now Christianits are defending big oil, fracking, and what not. That is kind of amazing to me.

Since when has raising taxes and wanting to force everyone to eat bugs been the way to save the environment? That’s just the way to give the elites more money.

New Polity has radically changed my view of the Christian relationship with creation and technology. Christians need to better understand the historical and spiritual underpinnings of the industrialized, money-making, resource-extracting view of nature that our society takes for granted. It’s not Catholic. I do agree that many of the proposed policies coming out of the left to deal with environmental issues are purely political and can do great harm…but I’m tired of Christians and those on the right outright denying there’s a crisis in creation care. And yes, fossil fuels are part of the problem.

It's crazy when you actually try to argue it with them because they do want humans to die. Less humans to make space for the nature goddess. That is the plan.

Or they want 2/3 of the state to revert to burning wood for heat, which is how most of NY got denuded by the early 19th century...

Lots of things in life, including a lot of what we eat and drink, contribute to medical issues. Why not ban sugar and alcohol? If a government is going to ban something because it can contribute to health problems, they should first ban the chemicals being added to our food and drink. The chemical and food industries have a lot more power than the fireplace industry, though, so government is fine with the health risks they create. If we just go by some people getting sick or injured, a seemingly reasonable case can be made for almost anything to be banned. If something exacerbates a condition, it's up to the individual to avoid it, not for the government to ban it for everyone. Maybe the government should ban peanuts and shellfish? They can kill people on one exposure, whereas you have to be exposed to a fireplace over a period of time for it to affect your health. When my nephew was young, he'd have a reaction if there were peanuts in the room. That's way more dangerous.

Stay away from the Catholics!!!

What is the point of this comment? He’s talking about the radical climate change activist. Why are you bringing up a topic not related to the video?

No its the radical climate hysteriacs that are unhinged.

@@bumponalog5001 ”’you have to save the environment.’ What the hell is the environment? What does that mean? You know I grew up in Northern Alberta. What was the environment? You go out into the bush in the Spring in Alberta and you’ll run smack dab into the environment alright. Clouds of mosquitoes and black flies. You’ll be one miserable little primate in no time flat. ‘Isn’t it beautiful?’(*mocking tone) It is if it’s an impressionist painting of the French country side. ‘Nature’(*tone of disgust)”. This is a quote from this video. It is not about a particular movement or activist, it is about the environment in general. My comment was about the environment in general. He talks about nature in a contemptuous way and on twitter for example, he makes loaded accusations against the Pope of being a pagan nature worshipper over his really rather benign comments about the Earth that are a lot of the time actually in total alignment with Saints and the Doctors of the Church. Climate change rhetoric is new, but it’s dishonest when Peterson accuses him of spending more time on saving the planet than on lost souls. His comments on the environment make up a small percentage of all of the Pope’s interviews and talks. I don’t think it’s normal to talk about nature in the way he does with such contempt and disgust(his facial expressions). While I agree the modern day environmentalists(I would *not* call them nature worshippers though, ie smart cities and electric cars have nothing to do with living in harmony with nature.) are pushing an agenda designed to control, nature and the stewardship of the natural world plays a vital role in the well being of human beings and shouldn’t be cast off as something humans are designed to be separate from. What’s the point of my comment? To share my opinion on the video, just like your comment is to share your opinion on my comment.

@@satyannair4837this is a Catholic podcast.

Chesterton was a staunch critic of industrialization.

@@kevinmauer3738 Well said. As with Tolkien, Carlin, Henley and many others. I think Alexandria means well in the spirit Catholicism. The Virgin Mary smiles upon her heart. I do not think Alexandria realizes how much she is serving the Corporate Plutocracy

He is referring to a leaked proposal to the government. They backed off a direct slaughter. Instead they are making it as hard as possible to farm livestock so you give up.

Why aren't governments feeding them instead of doing things like banning fireplaces and gas stoves and trying to limit people to 3 pieces of clothing a year? The Earth produces enough food for everyone and has the means to distribute it to those in need. Governments prevent that from being accomplished. Instead, they virtue signal by making policies that do little or nothing to correct the problems.

Voluntary austerity is virtuous, but forced austerity isn't. It's not for government to impose virtue on people. The laws it passes will save no souls. I very rarely buy clothing, but I don't support any policy that forces what I choose to do on people who choose differently. Whereas the Church advises us to live a particular way, government forces us to live a certain way. That's how it's a negative.

@@jomidiam I haven’t seen any forced austerity measures regarding clothing yet. At most, it is currently only a suggestion. Funnily enough, a suggestion right in line with Catholic teaching on moderate use of goods. And yet we have Catholics who worship politics as a God who condemn this. Shows you that their priorities is more about being aligned with their politics than the Faith.

But isn’t it strange to think that a free, normal human activity that has taken place since humans discovered fire, can be banned? It doesn’t require technology or any outside resources other than wood that is maybe on your property. In other words, now you can’t start a fire without relying on outside resources and people, who may or may not want to give you access to that resource. And my understanding is that these same people want to eliminate wood fired and gas appliances, so all that’s left is electricity. What about if the power goes out for an extended period? Maybe humans aren’t meant to life in dense urban areas where they are physically distant from food sources, it is logistically complex to bring food to them, and they have no knowledge or ability to grow their own food. Perhaps we should be incentivizing people to move out of cities.

@EvieGevie Only open fires and high pollution burners are banned. Stoves that meet requirements are still legal and are actually more fuel efficient. You can still burn wood, pellets and biofuel in these stoves. They are just all around more efficient and cleaner than the old open fire places. I remember watching the Old UK soaps of many decades ago where you had densely populated cities and townhouses crammed next to each other. During winter with the fires going in every household you could barely see the sky and I myself as a kid remember the smell in winter of that heavy smoke in the air. We now have effectively kept wood burners but created a cleaner and more efficient version. Again i see this as a good thing. Better for cost and for air that's pleasant to breathe in all year around. Also did you ever hear of the great smog which hit London for 4 days in 1952. 4000 people died and over 100,000 became ill with respiratory problems. It's so nice having clean air to breathe. It has nothing to do with climate change in my view. We have just found a better way

@@Paddy234 The newer low emission wood stoves are far more efficient. You can get 20 or 30 percent more heat out of a load of wood because the smoke itself is reburned before it exits the chimney. The smoke of old wood stoves is not merely toxic, irritating and carcinogenic, it's wasteful.

There is no divide if you follow Catholic teaching. Jordan Peterson is not a Christian, much less a son of the Church. If you want actual Church teaching on these matters I'd suggest you start with Laudato Si'. I'm a great fan of Pints with Aquinas but it was a very bad decision to undermine the Church's witness just to score some clicks.

Dogmatic Christianity (Catholicism) is the answer! And it says the opposite of Peterson's personal opinions on these questions.

@@kevinmauer3738 Okay thanks! :) I think that everything has a shadow side, but I like most religions.

Well, he's been in the 'unhinged uncle mode' for the last 4-5 years, so 'grumpy' would be an improvement.

Yes he is destroying the nice, compliant, lets-just-get-along Canadian stereotype single-handedly. Not even one "sorry".