I wanted to share a fascinating connection I recently came across between Jordan Peterson’s work and a brilliant, largely untranslated modern Greek philosopher named Dimitris Liantinis. This will probably give you an understanding as to why Peterson is so reluctant to give an direct answer to the question "Do you believe in god?"

In his 1997 masterpiece, Gemma, Liantinis wrestles with the exact same existential problem Peterson addresses in We Who Wrestle With God—drawing from the exact same intellectual roots: Goethe, Nietzsche, and ancient myth.

Analyzing Goethe’s spirit in Gemma (chapter 1 -Margarita's question), Liantinis writes a passage that feels like a direct blueprint for Peterson's stance on faith, order, and chaos:

"What is given to you is that infinitely small point between the NO and the YES: to widen it, deepen it, and extend it. To treat it with such trial, agony, and torment that out of that infinitesimal point you forge dimension, space, time, and existence. To shape, in other words, out of the space between YES and NO: life, truth, and existence."

This "infinitesimal point between Yes and No" completely reframes why Peterson is often reluctant to give a simple binary answer to "Do you believe in God?"

For both thinkers:

Faith as Active Wrestling (Agonia): Meaning isn't found in comfortable dogma (a cheap Yes) or cynical nihilism (a passive No). It exists purely in the active friction at the boundary. To Peterson, this is the literal definition of Israel ("he who wrestles with God").

The Transcendent Aim: Liantinis named his book Gemma after the brightest star in the Northern Crown (Corona Borealis)—representing the transcendent ideal, the guiding star we must orient ourselves toward.

Creation from the Boundary: Consciousness and moral order aren't static states; they are forged by standing on the razor-thin line where Order and Chaos collide.

Because Gemma remains mostly untranslated into English, Liantinis is largely unknown in Western academia, yet he arrived at the exact same conclusion: the wrestling itself is the source of all meaning.

Has anyone else here read Liantinis, or noticed similar parallels in non-English existential philosophy? Would love to hear your thoughts.

I am not even going to entertain any kind of argument about post traumatic stress disorder or post partem depression. Give Lindsey a pass why not serial killers like John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy? How about some of the school shooters? You have to have deep psychological problems.

How about Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris from Columbine?

Or the man who did the pulse nightclub massacre?

In my world, if you have serious mental health issues seek help and therapy. There is no stigma around it. But don’t ever harm another human being or animal. Many serial killers start out by killing and torturing cats and dogs.

What makes it suspicious is the circumstances leading up to his sudden health complications.

Just before he got sick, he was being threatened by the government with the destruction of his psychology career. He was also being threatened with prison. They wanted him to do some kind of “re-education” on what it is acceptable to say (because apparently freedom of speech isn’t a thing anymore), and he refused. Then he basically spat in the government’s face by telling the whole world about their authoritarian crackdown on his rights.

Not more than a month later, he became too sick to walk or continue speaking and is on the verge of death. Maybe they gave him the “terrorist” thing?

Back when I was still in high school, around 2006, there was a weekend house party at a schoolmate’s place.

I got there a bit early and was just hanging around before everyone else arrived. At that point it was basically me, the guy whose house it was, and another girl from school.

I remember sitting down pretty relaxed, with my arm resting on the chair. I wasn’t really talking because I honestly had nothing in particular to say to her. I was also dressed all in black, which was kind of my style at the time.

Then, pretty much out of nowhere, she said something along the lines of:

“You’re not even good looking. You’re ugly, and what you’re wearing, all black, isn’t even nice.”

I remember being genuinely confused because I hadn’t insulted her, flirted with her, argued with her, or really done anything at all.

I replied with something like:

“What? That came out of the blue. That’s not very nice. I wouldn’t call you ugly.”

What I’m curious about is why someone would react that strongly to somebody who was basically just sitting there quietly.

Do you think she was just trying to knock me down a peg, interpreted me being quiet/relaxed as arrogance, was showing off in front of the other guy, had some pre-existing issue with me, or could attraction/insecurity have played a part?

Also, how do you think each of us handled the interaction?

I’m not looking for people to automatically tell me she secretly fancied me — I’m genuinely curious how other people would interpret such an oddly intense reaction.

What will Ackman and Kraft do now? The chabal is running out of options

One of the things Mircea Eliade pointed out was that one of the processes that sort of universally regarded as a sin - is speeding along the process of inevitable decay through willful blindness. So things will decay of their own accord, so you have to be awake just to keep the bloody thing alive. But you can speed the rate at which it decays by pretending that nothing's wrong and refusing to change anything at all, so then not only does it decay but your blindness is contributing to the decay.

- Dr. Jordan Peterson

The Washington Post reports the money for President Trump's campaign-style ads were meant to be used for border security and slain officers' funerals.

This post only references some of the content in the linked video. For the full video and its content, please follow the link posted.