My Mind Often Wanders Like Harvey Korman

What do The Book of Clarence, mad moms, and Jordan Petersen have in common? Listen and be enlightened!

ParentGuru: Better Parenting Starts Here
Thousands of stressed parents are finding their way to better parenting with the help of ParentGuru.

Parenting With Love and Leadership
Weekly Substack newsletter by Parenting Expert John Rosemond.

Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.

Chapters

• 0:11 The Book of Cleverness
• 6:31 Parental Over-Protection vs Independence
• 20:00 Peterson's Complicated Interpretation of Scripture

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:11

You got yourself some children. They all be running wild, driving you crazy. They're keeping you up all night long. You better turn on your radio, dial up to John Goldman's show, because I said so. Well, welcome or welcome back, as the case may be, to Because I Said so the only podcast on the entire World Wide Web. You will hear the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about a number of things, including America's mental health professions and the scam they are running on America. And you will hear this from me, john Roseman. I'm a psychologist licensed by the North Carolina Psychology Board and arguably the most controversial psychological heretic in America, which I wear rather proudly, in fact. Welcome to this episode, because I said so. I hope that you enjoy what you're going to hear and I hope you keep coming back. Today's episode is going to range over several topics, beginning with what I call the book of cleverness. I didn't originally call it the book of cleverness, but after watching a podcast titled what a you Meme what a you Meme a very good podcast. I'm going to start watching it on a regular basis. Podcast I'm going to start watching it on a regular basis.

Speaker 1: 2:09

I entirely changed my opinion about this movie. We saw the movie the Book of Clarence when it came out, willie and I when it came out this past winter, and to be honest, I was prepared for a barrage of subliminal messages that promoted a postmodern, relativistic worldview and I really wasn't disappointed. But perhaps because I had anticipated them, they didn't bother me, I overlooked. As it turns out, I overlooked a lot and I came away believing that the book of Clarence, while it plays fast and loose with the Gospels at times, doesn't really cross the line of blasphemy. Scant knowledge, which I'm going to correct of the rapidly growing black nationalist movement in America. But I was wrong about the movie. I changed my mind after watching a podcast titled Disney's new quote Christian end quote movie has a hidden agenda. On previously named podcast, what a you Meme.

Speaker 1: 3:34

It turns out that, while the book of Clarence may seem at times like it's promoting an authentic Christian worldview, it's actually promoting the message of a group calling itself the 5% Nation, which broke off a number of years ago from the Nation of Islam currently led by Louis Farrakhan. Led by Louis Farrakhan, the 5% Nation believes black men are a divine, superior race. They call the quote gods of the earth. End quote. The 5% Nation believes whites are evil devils or evil devils. It believes God is black mankind. And that's the short list of their rather bizarre ideas. The producer-creator of the movie, rapper Jay-Z, also known as Beyonce's husband also known as Beyonce's husband believes God resides within each and every one of us, that each and every one of us is God, and Jay-Z often wears 5% nation bling. Jay-z's stock greeting peace to the gods is taken straight from the 5% Nation playbook. All of that is consistent with the movie's portrayal of white people as villains out to acquire power by suppressing the common folk, all of whom, in the movie, are portrayed by black people. It is not coincidence at all that Clarence's message knowledge is stronger than belief is also a matter of 5% nation doctrine. But don't take my word for it. Folks Go see the movie and understand that Jay-Z and his posse are hoping they can appeal to people who lack functional critical thinking ability, which is to say most people. In that regard, consider that Focus on the Family and Christianity Today gave the film positive reviews. They were fooled. So was I. Don't you be okay? Part two.

Speaker 1: 6:31

Part two of this uh podcast episode because I said so is titled she's only challenged the rules five times. Only. This pertains to a mother who recently told me that she had gone to her child's high school to challenge a rule that prevented him from taking a class until he was a junior. At the time I believe he was a sophomore. She was obviously worked up about it it and, predictably, the school's administration caved under pressure. My response to the mother in question was I'm not going to pass judgment on you or what you did, but I will tell you that people my age and thereabouts have a hard time relating to a story of that sort. She obviously needed more of an explanation, so I added, our parents would not have challenged a rule like that unless it was being applied unequally. Well, I've only had to go to the school five times. She replied her back up a tad. If I don't stand up for my children, no one will. So note that in this mother's mind, five trips to her child's school to insist that an exception be made for him qualifies as quote only. End quote. Also, consider that the exception in question was not make it or break it. Her entitled one would still have gotten into the college of his choice or an equivalent. His health, including his mental health, was not at issue, like I told the mom in question, boomers can't relate to stories like that, which have become commonplace.

Speaker 1: 8:43

Taking my parents, for example, had I come home complaining that I had to wait a year to take a certain course, they would have said something along the lines of well, kiddo, that's the way the ball bounces. It sometimes seemed to me that the ball never bounced in my direction. People my age were raised to expect and accept, however reluctantly, that not getting one's way was the norm in the real world. Back then, a mom went to the school to complain when the chemistry teacher purposefully threw boiling hydrochloric acid on her kid. Nothing less would do, or so it sometimes seemed. Shortly after the start of my fifth grade year, I complained to my mother that a certain teacher didn't like me, and I went on to prove my contention with several anecdotes. And my mother said and she was cooking at the time. I remember this very clearly she was cooking at the time. She didn't even turn away from the stove, she just kept her eye on what she was cooking and said well, it's high time you got used to people not liking you, especially people in positions of power. For the rest of your life you're going to encounter people teachers, coaches, bosses who don't like you. You need to learn to deal with them and maybe even get them to like you. End of discussion. When I share that story, by the way, with a person my age. End of discussion. When I share that story, by the way, with a person my age, they always it never fails come back with a similar story concerning their parents.

Speaker 1: 10:40

Have I mentioned that the mental health of children raised in the 1950s and early 60s was 10 times better than the mental health of children today? Moms began confronting school administrators in the early 1970s. Around the same time, child mental health began to deteriorate. I'm not mentioning dads, by the way, because dads are much less likely to regard hardship, disappointment, rejection and even failure as bad things, as did I during my active parenting years. Many dads even want their children to experience those life realities and be thus toughened.

Speaker 1: 11:27

Today's moms not all, of course, but entirely too many are in codependent relationships with their kids. Codependent is personalizing a negative event in your child's life and determining that it's your job to solve it for him. That's codependency. Codependency is when your child's emotions define your emotions. Your child is angry because he didn't make the team, so you get even more angry and confront the coach carrying a torch in one hand and a pitchfork in the other. Coach carrying a torch in one hand and a pitchfork in the other. Your teenage son comes home crying because his girlfriend broke it off with him, and you call the girl's mother and ask her help in getting them back together.

Speaker 1: 12:16

I've actually heard those stories, folks, and more than once. Then there's that thing about if I don't stand up for my children, no one will. Well, that's precisely correct, in which case they would have to learn to stand up for themselves. Or they have to learn to accept that life isn't fair and when it's not, no one is likely to stand up for you. Not, no one is likely to stand up for you. Or they figure out what's really important and what's not, and they save their energy for the former. In any event, they prosper in the long run. The problem is that the majority of America's young people no longer possess tolerance for the word long in the phrase the long run. Okay, that's a wrap on part two.

Speaker 1: 13:14

Part three is an update on the question is Jordan Peterson a mystic or a misfit? Oh, I am so very clever. Is Peterson a mystic or a misfit. I love alliteration, don't you? Yes, you do just as much as I do, admit it. So this is my third attempt to convince the public, or at least those in the public who listen to me, that Jordan Peterson is not what he appears to be. The more I travel down the road that leads to cosmic understanding of the cosmos of Jordan Peterson, the more I entertain the thought that Peterson thinks he is the resurrected incarnation of both the Buddha and Carl Jung or Jung. My latest trip down the road that leads to cosmic understanding of the cosmos of Jordan Peterson, my latest trip down the road that leads to cosmic understanding of the cosmos of Jordan Peterson which, by the way, is a real road that winds around and through the misty mountains of Shangri-La no kidding. Anyway, my latest trip down that fabled road convinced me that Peterson is neither a mystic nor a misfit, nor a charlatan nor a prophet. He's confused. He is as confused as he is confusing.

Speaker 1: 14:43

I recently watched two videos in which Peterson attempts to articulate his take on the resurrection of Christ Jesus. He attempts both times to answer the question was the resurrection of Jesus a real bodily in the flesh, literal rising from a state of biological death to a state of biological life, or was it merely symbolic, and if symbolic, in whole or in part? Symbolic of what Pray tell? On both occasions, peterson failed to answer the question with any degree of clarity sufficient to understanding him for himself. A means of responding to people who realize correctly that he is a postmodern, progressive, relativistic heretic. A means of responding to those folks when they confront him with the literality of his nonsense, that being oh well, you misunderstand what I'm trying to say. Well, it's easy to misunderstand because when he talks, he babbles. I mean, he uses big words, he sounds like a professor, but if you really listen to what he's saying, he's babbling folks. So what is there to misunderstand about Jordan Peterson? He says he's reached no conclusion concerning the question of whether the resurrection was or was not literal, but views it as a retelling of the ancient myth of the God who dies and then comes back to life. Back to life. In other words, peterson believes the story of the resurrection is a recapitulation of one of mankind's oldest myth symbols, but he does not believe anything beyond that. In 2018, that would be six years ago he predicted he would need three more years of study to answer the pertinent question was the resurrection, real and literal or only symbolic 2018,. He predicted he would need three more years of study to answer that pertinent question. Six years later, he still cannot answer it. Like I said, he's confused. Why is this so hard for him? Well, let me help you. Jordan.

Speaker 1: 17:32

After the crucifixion, the disciples were huddled together in hiding in the upper room presumably anyway the upper room having locked the door, fearful for their lives, convinced the Jewish and Roman authorities behind Christ's crucifixion were coming for them next, when suddenly, jesus appeared in their midst, having walked through a solid object, the wall or the door, thus demonstrating his command over his creation. Thus demonstrating his command over his creation. Jesus converses intelligibly with them, he eats with them, he allows Thomas the doubter to touch him and the next time we see the apostles, they're out in the streets of Jerusalem proclaiming the risen Christ. And as they fully well understood would probably happen, because Jesus had told them it would, all but one of them were murdered for proclaiming the good news. And, as Jesus had done, when they knew the authorities were coming after them, they stood firm. They did not run the Dalai Lama, the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama ran, not the apostles. They stood firm for the truth?

Speaker 1: 19:19

Why, after three years of wrestling with recorded facts that confirm a literal resurrection, does Peterson still waffle? What is the meaning of his inability to reach a conclusion? Is he afraid he will lose a good chunk of his audience, that they will abandon him? He must not know. Jesus experienced exactly that. He told his followers the truth about himself and the truth about themselves, and hundreds, if not thousands, became a mere twelve in the blink of an eye.

Speaker 1: 20:00

Peterson must not know his scripture well, because if he did, he wouldn't care if proclaiming the risen Lord would cause people to leave his retinue. Or is he just making yet another something more complicated than it really is? That's what Peterson does, after all. He takes a subject life, for example and complicates it to the point where he's thrashing incoherently about in the weeds and everyone is pretending to understand what he's saying. Come on, let's face it, folks, to admit to certain people that you are not going to pretend that you understand. What Peterson is trying to say is to commit social suicide in certain social groupings. And let's face it one more time we are all on the peer-pressured spectrum. Maybe saying he believes fervently and unequivocally in the literality of Jesus's resurrection is a bridge too far for Peterson Like is a bridge too far for Peterson Like he realizes he would no longer appear to be the intellectually sophisticated image he so carefully cultivates.

Speaker 1: 21:27

I'd love to have a private conversation with Peterson Private, I'm not interested in making a splash on YouTube. I'd simply tell him Jordan, my man, you're not going to understand anything, literally anything correctly until you're able to fully grasp and incorporate two things First, that the story of creation is told in the first chapter of the book of Genesis is unmitigated fact, although it is told in what is known as mythopoetic language. And second, that the story of the life, death by execution and bodily resurrection of the God-man Jesus is told in the Gospels is unmitigated fact. I would love to hear Peterson's response. He genuinely fascinates me. And folks, that's a wrap, glad you've joined us. Fascinates me and folks, that's a wrap, glad you've joined us. Hope you keep joining us on this weekly podcast called Because I Said so, remember folks between now and then. Whenever, then is keep on rocking in the free world because, folks, this is the truth. Keep on rocking in the free world because if we don't keep rocking it, we are going to lose it. They are going to take it away.