Title: "The Soviet Union vs. Dr. Jordan B. Peterson: How Far the USSR Would Go to Annihilate an Ideological Threat"

Follow @SkillsGapTrain

Preamble: There have been recent claims suggesting that Jordan Peterson might have ties to Russian funding. In a committee hearing, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau implied that Russian money could have been used to amplify certain right-wing figures, including Jordan Peterson, to destabilize democracy. However, these claims have not been substantiated with evidence, and Peterson has indicated his intent to pursue legal action in response to these accusations. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/jordan-peterson-legal-action-trudeau-accused-russian-money

Introduction

Jordan Peterson has often been accused of various political alignments, including the outrageous claim that he might be sympathetic to Russia or even Soviet-era ideologies.

These accusations couldn’t be further from the truth.

In reality, Peterson’s ideas are antithetical to the principles that defined the Soviet Union.

To make this clear, we’ve compiled a detailed breakdown of 31 key topics Peterson frequently discusses — each of which would have clashed with the values of the Soviet state during the 1980s, with potentially severe consequences had he expressed them publicly.

Part 1 – Here’s why his philosophies stand in stark opposition to Soviet ideology.

1. Individual Freedom

Peterson’s advocacy for individual freedom would have been perceived as a direct threat to the Soviet state’s collectivist control. The idea of personal liberty, autonomy, and living outside the state’s collective mandates would likely have resulted in arrest for anti-Soviet activities and subversive behaviour.

2. Free Speech

Promoting unrestricted dialogue in a society where censorship was the norm would have marked Peterson as an enemy of the state. The Soviet Union suppressed dissent, and anyone advocating free speech would have faced the KGB’s wrath, leading to imprisonment or worse.

3. Personal Responsibility

Peterson’s message of taking personal responsibility clashes directly with the Soviet system, where the state held ultimate responsibility for every citizen. Suggesting individuals take control of their own lives would likely have led to accusations of promoting bourgeois individualism, ending in imprisonment or exile.

4. Meritocracy

Peterson’s support for merit-based success over state-determined privilege would have been considered counter-revolutionary. In a society where political loyalty was more important than individual achievement, such ideas could have cost him his academic position and led to long-term surveillance or worse.

5. Opposition to Ideological Conformity

In the Soviet Union, ideological conformity was a requirement. Peterson’s opposition to groupthink and his promotion of diverse, independent thought would have been seen as a direct challenge to Soviet authority. He would likely have faced arrest, interrogation, and possible exile for spreading “counter-revolutionary” ideas.

6. Importance of the Individual

Peterson’s emphasis on the individual would clash with the Soviet focus on collectivism. In the Soviet Union, individuals were secondary to the goals of the state. Anyone championing the individual’s moral and psychological importance would be labelled as an enemy of the people and subjected to imprisonment or internal exile.

7. Critique of Marxism

Jordan Peterson’s frequent critiques of Marxism directly contradict the ideological foundation of the Soviet Union. Criticizing Marxism was tantamount to treason, and Peterson could have been arrested, tortured, or sent to a labour camp for his views.

8. Psychological Well-being and Mental Health

Peterson’s open discussions about mental health would have been seen as a threat to the state, which often viewed mental illness as a political issue. Soviet authorities frequently silenced dissidents by committing them to psychiatric institutions, a fate Peterson could have faced.

9. Gender Differences

In the Soviet Union, official gender equality was promoted, but Peterson’s ideas about inherent gender differences would have conflicted with the state’s ideology. He would have been denounced as anti-progressive and possibly faced job loss, blacklisting, or imprisonment.

10. Religious Freedom

Peterson’s exploration of religion and spirituality would have been suppressed in the officially atheist Soviet Union. Expressing support for religious freedom would have made Peterson a target for the KGB, leading to surveillance, arrest, or forced exile.

11. Criticism of Authoritarianism

Peterson’s critique of authoritarianism would have been viewed as a direct attack on the Soviet regime. This would have led to immediate consequences, including arrest, and could have resulted in a long-term sentence in a labour camp or house arrest.

12. Rule of Law over Rule by Force

Peterson’s call for rule of law over arbitrary state force would have clashed with the reality of Soviet governance. Questioning the legitimacy of the state’s authority could have resulted in his arrest for undermining the regime.

13. Private Property Rights

Peterson’s support for private property and capitalism is fundamentally opposed to the Soviet Union’s communist values. Advocating for private ownership would have been considered capitalist propaganda, leading to a harsh response from the state.

14. Decentralization of Power

Peterson’s ideas of decentralizing power are diametrically opposed to the centralized control of the Soviet regime. Speaking about decentralization would have marked him as a threat to the state, leading to arrest or public denunciation.

15. Self-Improvement and Individual Agency

Peterson’s focus on self-improvement directly contradicts the Soviet ideal of collective progress overseen by the state. Promoting individual growth and agency would have likely resulted in surveillance, loss of privileges, and imprisonment.

16. Criticism of Utopian Ideologies

Peterson’s critique of utopian visions, particularly those rooted in Marxism, would have been deemed subversive. Criticizing the state’s ideological foundation could have led to arrest and imprisonment for counter-revolutionary behaviour.

17. Objective Truth and Science

Peterson’s rejection of politically motivated science would have made him a target in the Soviet Union, where science was often used to promote ideological goals. He could have been expelled from academic circles or imprisoned for questioning state-endorsed “truth.”

18. Creative Expression and Art

Peterson’s defense of artistic freedom would have been dangerous in a system that tightly controlled art and culture. Any support for creative expression outside state-approved guidelines could have resulted in censorship, blacklisting, or imprisonment.

19. Skepticism of Government Overreach

Peterson’s warnings about government overreach would have put him in direct conflict with the Soviet state. Criticism of the government’s power would have led to intense surveillance, public denunciation, and possible imprisonment.

20. Human Nature as Flawed

Peterson’s view that human nature is inherently flawed and resistant to perfectibility through social engineering would have been considered counter-revolutionary. Such ideas would have led to accusations of undermining socialist ideals, resulting in imprisonment or forced labour.

21. Criticism of Collectivism

Peterson’s disdain for collectivism, a core principle of Soviet society, would have been seen as dangerous. Promoting individual rights over collective goals would have made him a target for state repression, likely leading to imprisonment or exile.

22. Role of the Family

Peterson’s support for the traditional nuclear family would have clashed with Soviet efforts to reduce the influence of the family in favour of the collective. Promoting strong family values could have led to job loss, surveillance, and public criticism.

23. Criticism of Identity Politics

Though identity politics wasn’t as prominent in the Soviet Union as today, any critique of class-based social categories (such as proletariat vs. bourgeoisie) would have been seen as subversive, leading to persecution and arrest.

24. The Value of Hierarchies

Peterson’s defense of hierarchies, especially merit-based ones, would have conflicted with the Soviet emphasis on equality. Advocating for natural hierarchies would have led to accusations of elitism and likely imprisonment.

25. Critical Thinking and Questioning Authority

Promoting critical thinking and questioning authority would have been regarded as a dangerous attack on the Soviet state’s monopoly on truth. Encouraging independent thought would likely have resulted in Peterson’s arrest or exile.

26. Opposition to State-Controlled Education

Peterson’s criticism of state-controlled education would have put him at odds with Soviet indoctrination practices. Questioning the state’s educational policies could have led to surveillance, public denunciation, and imprisonment.

27. Opposition to Censorship and Propaganda

Peterson’s criticism of censorship and propaganda would have directly challenged the Soviet system of information control. Publicly denouncing state propaganda would likely have resulted in his arrest, imprisonment, or forced exile.

28. Human Rights

Advocating for universal human rights would have been seen as an attack on Soviet policies. Pointing out human rights abuses could have led to accusations of treason, surveillance, and harsh punishment, such as imprisonment in a labour camp.

29. Criticism of Historical Revisionism

Peterson’s critique of historical revisionism would have been a direct challenge to the Soviet state’s control over historical narratives. This could have resulted in public denunciation, loss of academic standing, and potential imprisonment.

30. Freedom to Pursue Meaning

Promoting the individual’s right to pursue personal meaning, as Peterson often does, would have been seen as undermining the Soviet collective purpose. Encouraging personal fulfillment could have led to surveillance, harassment, or worse.

31. Decentralization of Economic Power

Advocating for decentralized, market-driven economies would have been considered capitalist propaganda, leading to Peterson’s arrest for subversion. The Soviet regime would have responded harshly to any challenge to its centrally planned economy.

Conclusion

Jordan Peterson’s ideas are deeply rooted in values that stand in opposition to the fundamental principles of the Soviet Union.

If Peterson had spoken openly about these 31 topics in the 1980s, the consequences would have been swift and severe— ranging from surveillance and public denunciation to imprisonment or exile.

It is clear that any suggestion Peterson is aligned with Soviet or Russian ideologies is entirely baseless. On the contrary, his philosophies would have placed him in direct conflict with the Soviet regime, likely making him a target of state repression.

Part 2 – How Far Would the USSR Go to Silence Dr. Jordan B. Peterson?

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson’s ideas would pose a significant ideological threat to the Soviet Union. In a hypothetical scenario where Dr. Jordan B. Peterson lived in Soviet Union in 1980s, and maintained his current posture of active public international communication with his ideas and analyses, posing a significant ideological threat to the Soviet Union, the state would likely expend substantial resources to monitor, suppress, and neutralize his influence. Here’s how they might approach it:

1. KGB Surveillance and Counter-Intelligence

KGB Operations: The Soviet Union’s primary security and intelligence agency, the KGB, would be tasked with surveilling Peterson. This would involve phone tapping, monitoring communications, and placing informants close to him. In a high-profile case, they could dedicate a special division to track his movements, contacts, and potential supporters.
Infiltration: The KGB would likely plant agents or informants in any academic, intellectual, or political circles that Peterson was involved in. These agents would monitor his activities and even attempt to entrap him in illegal or counter-revolutionary actions.
Psychiatric Repression: If his ideas were publicized, they might label him as mentally unstable and send him to a psychiatric hospital — a common tactic used against dissidents like him in the USSR.

2. Propaganda Campaigns

Public Smear Campaigns: The state-run media, including newspapers like Pravda, radio, and television, would launch propaganda campaigns to discredit him. They could accuse him of being a tool of the West, engaging in bourgeois individualism, or spreading anti-Communist sentiment.
Denunciations: Academic institutions and public figures might be coerced or encouraged to publicly denounce him, branding him an “enemy of the people.” These denunciations would create a narrative that Peterson is working against the interests of the Soviet working class and the collective good.

3. Censorship and Suppression of Materials

Censorship of Books and Lectures: Any books, speeches, or lectures written by or related to Peterson would be banned and confiscated. Soviet censorship was extremely strict, with a vast network of censors ensuring that only approved content was allowed to circulate.
Control of the Intelligentsia: The Soviet Union tightly controlled intellectuals, writers, and philosophers. Peterson’s publications would be seized, and any university or intellectual group promoting his ideas would face punishment, such as closures or arrests of key members.

4. Surveillance Technology

Advanced Surveillance Technology: The Soviet Union would leverage its advanced (for the time) surveillance systems, including hidden microphones in his residence and offices, wiretapping his phone, and intercepting mail.
State-Controlled Institutions: Universities and public forums where Peterson might try to speak would be under constant surveillance. His students and colleagues could also be monitored to ensure no sympathetic networks formed around him.

5. Punitive Measures

Arrest and Interrogation: Should Peterson refuse to cease his activities, he would likely be arrested. Interrogation methods were harsh, often involving physical and psychological abuse to force confessions. A KGB interrogation team would be assigned to extract details of his foreign connections or internal collaborators.
Show Trials: The Soviet Union frequently held show trials to make examples of intellectuals or dissidents. Peterson could face a trial where his ideological crimes are put on public display, ending with imprisonment or worse.

6. Psychiatric Abuse (Punitive Psychiatry)

If Peterson were perceived as too influential, the state might classify him as mentally ill and send him to a psychiatric institution, a tactic commonly used against dissidents. There, he would undergo forced treatments designed to discredit him further and suppress his ideas under the guise of mental illness.

7. Internal and External Surveillance

Border Control and Travel Restrictions: Peterson would likely be placed under travel restrictions, preventing him from leaving the country. The Soviet Union maintained a tight grip on citizens, especially dissidents, making travel outside the state-controlled areas nearly impossible.
International Monitoring: If Peterson’s ideas spread to foreign audiences, the KGB might coordinate with intelligence agencies of satellite states and potentially even attempt to neutralize his message abroad through covert operations.

8. Exile or Forced Labour

Internal Exile: If Peterson continued to be a nuisance to Soviet authorities, he could be sent to remote regions, such as Siberia, under conditions of internal exile, limiting his ability to spread ideas and isolating him from potential supporters.
Gulag System: The most extreme response would be to send Peterson to a forced labour camp (Gulag). Dissidents often faced hard labour in brutal conditions, designed to break both their physical and ideological resistance.

9. Cultural and Academic Purge

Academic Expulsion: Peterson would lose his academic position and be blacklisted from any intellectual activity. The state would ensure that no institutions, schools, or publishing houses would dare associate with him.
Rewriting His Legacy: The state might engage in historical revisionism, erasing any favourable mention of Peterson from Soviet records and replacing it with accusations of treason or counter-revolutionary activity.

10. International Diplomatic Pressure

If Peterson’s ideas gained international traction, the Soviet Union could engage in diplomatic campaigns to pressure other countries to distance themselves from his ideas or movements. This could involve political manipulation in international forums like the UN, accusing him of being a tool of capitalist propaganda.

The Soviet Union had a wide array of tools at its disposal to deal with ideological threats. They would invest heavily in surveillance, censorship, propaganda, and punitive measures to neutralize a figure like Jordan Peterson, expending resources across the KGB, academic circles, the legal system, and cultural institutions.

However, if Dr. Jordan B Peterson escaped, and if the Soviet Union couldn’t capture Jordan Peterson despite deploying standard methods such as surveillance, propaganda, and KGB infiltration, they would likely escalate their efforts significantly.

The Soviet regime, notoriously ruthless in silencing dissent, would stop at nothing to neutralize such a threat. Here are the extreme lengths they might go to in order to catch him:

11. Global Intelligence Network

International Operations: The Soviet Union had a vast intelligence network that extended beyond its borders through the KGB’s Directorate S, known for running covert operations internationally. They would leverage their global espionage capabilities to track Peterson’s movements. This could include deploying agents to countries where he might have fled, bribing local officials, and using their diplomatic missions (under cover of embassies) as bases for these operations.
Allied Intelligence Support: They might collaborate with the intelligence agencies of Eastern Bloc nations (e.g., the Stasi in East Germany) or other communist countries like Cuba or North Korea to widen the net. This alliance could give them access to resources and contacts in countries beyond Soviet borders, effectively extending their manhunt into neutral or even Western countries.

12. Enhanced KGB Operations (Kidnapping and Assassination)

Assassination Attempts: If Peterson was elusive and considered a severe threat, the KGB could resort to assassination attempts. The Soviet Union had a history of targeting dissidents abroad, as seen in the cases of Georgi Markov (poisoned in London) and Leon Trotsky (assassinated in Mexico). They could send agents to track him down and eliminate him using covert assassination methods, including poisons, disguised accidents, or even direct attacks.
Kidnapping: If assassination wasn’t their first option, the KGB might attempt to kidnap Peterson from abroad. They would execute a well-planned operation to secretly transport him back to the Soviet Union, using sleeper agents or bribing local officials in foreign countries to facilitate his capture.

13. Use of Foreign Operatives and Proxy Actors

Hiring Mercenaries or Criminal Organizations: In addition to KGB agents, the Soviets might hire mercenaries, international criminal organizations, or even radical ideological groups sympathetic to the communist cause to track down and capture Peterson. These actors, who operate outside the law, would be more willing to undertake risky or illegal operations in regions where Soviet influence was weaker.
Infiltration of Refugee Networks: If Peterson sought asylum in the West, the KGB could attempt to infiltrate refugee networks, immigration agencies, or organizations sympathetic to dissidents. By planting agents or bribing insiders in these organizations, they could gather information on his whereabouts or future travel plans.

14. Diplomatic and Political Pressure on Host Countries

Exerting Diplomatic Pressure: If Peterson was hiding in a Western country or neutral nation, the Soviet Union might exert extreme diplomatic pressure on that government to extradite him, even if no formal legal grounds existed. They could threaten economic retaliation, cut diplomatic ties, or offer trade deals to entice the host nation into handing him over.
Slander and Accusations on the Global Stage: The Soviets might publicly accuse Peterson of being involved in espionage, terrorism, or anti-Soviet conspiracies. By building a case that he was a dangerous figure, they could pressure international organizations or even local authorities in the country he was hiding in to pursue or arrest him.

15. False Flag Operations

Creating Fake Scandals or Crimes: If direct capture or assassination was too risky, the Soviet Union could stage a false flag operation, framing Peterson for a crime or scandal in the country where he resided. They might plant fabricated evidence that he was involved in drug trafficking, terrorism, or political subversion, leading local law enforcement to arrest him.
Impersonation and Disinformation Campaigns: They could go as far as impersonating Peterson or his associates to create disinformation that undermines his safety or position in the country. For example, leaking false claims that he was a double agent or collaborating with Western intelligence services, thus making him a target in a host country.

16. Coercion or Blackmail of Associates

Targeting His Close Circle: If they couldn’t catch Peterson himself, the Soviets would target his family, friends, or colleagues, using coercion or blackmail to force them into revealing his location. They might even kidnap or threaten his loved ones, leveraging their safety as a bargaining chip.
Pressure on Intellectual Circles: The Soviet regime might also exert pressure on academic and intellectual circles where Peterson had influence, threatening or bribing those in his network to turn him over or cut ties with him.

17. Psychological Warfare

Isolation and Fear Tactics: Knowing that public figures thrive on their ability to communicate, the Soviets could use tactics to isolate Peterson, cutting off his access to public platforms, media outlets, or influential intellectual groups. By applying pressure on any media or organizations that gave him a voice, they would aim to make him feel isolated and powerless, ultimately pushing him into surrender or desperation.
Disinformation and Reputation Attacks: The KGB was notorious for its “active measures” (disinformation campaigns), which they could use to discredit Peterson globally. By spreading lies about his personal life, his academic work, or fabricating false claims of criminal activity, the Soviets could damage his reputation so severely that he would lose support, making it easier to capture or neutralize him.

18. Cyber Espionage (Hypothetically)

Cyber Surveillance and Hacks: Though cyber operations were not as advanced during the Cold War as they are today, in a modern scenario, the Soviets would likely deploy cyber warfare tactics to track his online activity. They could hack into his emails, social media accounts, or personal devices to gather intelligence on his movements and plans.
Online Disinformation and Sabotage: They might also run extensive online disinformation campaigns, flooding the internet with fake news, documents, or posts that would make it harder for him to maintain credibility or build public support. They could sabotage his communications or use phishing attacks to gain access to sensitive information.

19. Bounty and Rewards for Capture

Bounty Programs: The Soviet Union could issue bounties for information leading to Peterson’s capture, offering significant rewards for anyone providing details on his whereabouts. These bounties could be offered discreetly through local contacts or even indirectly through criminal networks.

20. Leveraging International Organizations

Influencing Global Institutions: The Soviet Union might try to manipulate international organizations like the United Nations or Interpol to issue warrants or pursue legal action against Peterson under fabricated charges, making him a global fugitive. By turning international legal frameworks against him, they could restrict his movements and force his capture.

21. Psychological Operations (PSYOPS)

Targeting Peterson’s Support Base: The Soviets could engage in psychological warfare aimed at eroding Peterson’s support base by spreading disinformation about his character, motivations, and background. They would aim to sow distrust among his allies, colleagues, and followers, creating internal conflict and weakening his ability to operate.
Exploiting Divisions: They might also infiltrate his support network, causing fractures through misinformation campaigns. By exploiting ideological divisions or personality conflicts, the Soviets could cause those around him to turn against him or give him up in exchange for safety or privileges.

In a scenario where the Soviet Union was unable to capture Dr. Jordan B. Peterson through standard methods, they would escalate to more extreme measures, including international espionage, assassination attempts, kidnapping, and false flag operations.

The Soviet regime would use every tool at its disposal, from cyber and psychological warfare to diplomatic pressure and intelligence alliances, to ensure that Peterson’s ideas were silenced and that he was either captured or neutralized.

Given their track record, the lengths to which they’d go would be practically limitless, especially since he would be perceived as a significant threat to their ideological foundation.

Additionally, in the event that all covert operations and intelligence methods failed to capture Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, and he continued to pose an ideological threat to the Soviet Union via global communications as he does today, the state might escalate to military-level operations.

Given the Soviet Union’s notorious willingness to use extreme measures to preserve its ideology, military assets could be employed either overtly or covertly.

Here’s how military resources might be mobilized in this hypothetical scenario:

22. Special Operations Forces (Spetsnaz Deployment)

Direct Action Mission: The Soviet Union’s elite Spetsnaz forces could be deployed for a highly covert direct action mission aimed at neutralizing or capturing Peterson. Spetsnaz were well-versed in deep penetration missions, trained to operate behind enemy lines, and adept at hostage rescue, assassination, or targeted abductions. In a situation where Peterson is residing in a hostile or neutral country, a small, elite team could infiltrate and carry out a swift operation to kidnap or eliminate him.
Sabotage and Capture Operations: These forces could also carry out sabotage operations to weaken Peterson’s ability to evade capture—destroying safe houses, vehicles, or any logistical support systems he relied on. They might target his communications, transportation, or allies in a precision strike operation designed to force him into a vulnerable position for capture.

23. Military Intelligence (GRU) Support

Advanced Military Surveillance: The GRU, the Soviet Union’s military intelligence agency, could augment the KGB’s operations with military-grade surveillance, including aerial reconnaissance or satellite imaging to track Peterson’s movements. The GRU could use military resources, such as drone technology (if in a modern scenario), to keep constant tabs on his location, movement patterns, and any hideouts he might use.
Intercepting Communications: The GRU’s advanced signal intelligence capabilities could be deployed to intercept any communications Peterson or his supporters use. By tapping into global military communication networks, they could track his movements in real-time, offering a significant advantage in locating him.

24. Creation of a Hostile Environment Using Military Tactics

Blockades or Road Closures: The Soviet military, in cooperation with local governments (through diplomatic pressure or force), could establish roadblocks, impose curfews, or create military exclusion zones in areas where they believe Peterson is hiding. This tactic could effectively cut off all movement in and out of certain regions, making it nearly impossible for him to flee.
Imposing No-Fly Zones: In a situation where Peterson is known to be on the move, the Soviets could coordinate with international allies or use Soviet air force assets to impose no-fly zones or restrict air travel in certain areas, preventing him from escaping by air. This could be done covertly under the guise of military exercises or regional security concerns.

25. Covert Paramilitary Operations

Proxy Paramilitary Forces: In areas where direct Soviet military intervention would be politically or logistically difficult, they could finance or arm local paramilitary groups to carry out the capture or assassination of Peterson. These groups could operate with plausible deniability, making it difficult to directly trace their actions back to the Soviet Union. This tactic would mirror Soviet actions in conflicts like the Afghan-Soviet War, where they supported local forces for their strategic objectives.
Wetwork (Assassination) Squads: The Soviets could organize secret assassination squads, similar to Operation TREST (an early Soviet counter-espionage operation), deploying them with orders to kill Peterson in a discreet, untraceable manner. These squads could operate under cover, blending into hostile environments to avoid detection, and would act quickly to eliminate the target once found.

26. Military Airstrike or Bombing Campaign

Precision Airstrikes: If Peterson had become deeply entrenched in an inaccessible or fortified area, and all other means had failed, the Soviets could resort to a military airstrike. A surgical strike on his location using fighter jets or bombers would demonstrate the regime’s willingness to escalate the conflict to lethal military action. This would be a high-risk, high-reward move, especially in foreign territories where open conflict might be politically sensitive.
Bombing of Hideouts: If Peterson had built a network of safehouses or hideouts, the Soviet military could conduct targeted bombing campaigns to systematically destroy each known location, using helicopter gunships or precision-guided munitions. This would force Peterson to keep moving, reducing his chances of escape or survival.

27. Naval and Maritime Operations

Naval Blockades: Should Peterson attempt to flee by sea, the Soviet Union’s naval forces could set up a blockade or use submarines to intercept any ship carrying him. The Soviet Navy had substantial assets that could be deployed across international waters to monitor maritime routes and prevent any escape by sea.
Covert Submarine Operations: A Soviet submarine could be deployed for a clandestine mission to either extract Peterson or sink any vessel suspected of harboring him, especially if he were fleeing across neutral or hostile waters. These operations would be disguised as accidents or maritime incidents, making them hard to trace back to Soviet actions.

28. PsyOps and Military Deception (Maskirovka)

False Military Movements: The Soviets were experts in maskirovka (military deception), and they could employ these tactics to confuse Peterson and his network. By simulating military movements, creating fake evacuation corridors, or announcing false operations, they could lure him into a trap. Peterson might believe he’s found a safe exit or neutral zone, only to walk into an ambush carefully orchestrated by Soviet forces.
Psychological Warfare Operations: The military could engage in PsyOps aimed at demoralizing Peterson and his supporters. This could include spreading rumors that they were closing in on him, dropping leaflets from military aircraft warning of his impending capture, or using loudspeakers to broadcast disinformation aimed at breaking his resolve.

29. International Military Collaboration

Leveraging the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Allies: The Soviet Union could leverage its Warsaw Pact allies or other communist regimes (such as China, North Korea, or Cuba) to assist in military operations. This might involve sharing intelligence, using foreign military bases to launch operations, or even getting foreign militaries to take direct action under Soviet guidance.
Military Bases Abroad: Soviet military assets stationed abroad, such as in Cuba or East Germany, could be mobilized for staging covert military operations in nearby countries, extending the Soviet Union’s reach well beyond its borders.

30. Black Ops and Covert War

Covert Battlefield Tactics: The Soviet military could engage in black ops operations, using unmarked vehicles, soldiers in civilian clothing, and covert war tactics to capture or eliminate Peterson without overtly declaring military action. These types of operations would be highly secretive and designed to leave no traceable evidence of Soviet involvement.
Sabotage and Disruption: If Peterson was entrenched in a foreign country sympathetic to his cause, the Soviets could use military-grade sabotage tactics to cripple critical infrastructure supporting him. They might blow up bridges, disrupt electricity grids, or destroy telecommunications in areas where he was hiding, forcing him out into the open.

31. Deploying Biological or Chemical Weapons

Targeted Use of Chemical Agents: In an extreme scenario, the Soviet Union might resort to the use of chemical or biological agents to incapacitate Peterson and his supporters. The Soviets had developed a wide range of chemical weapons during the Cold War, including nerve agents like Novichok. These could be deployed in a small-scale operation to kill or incapacitate him without leaving direct evidence.
Biological Warfare: In the most extreme case, the Soviets could use biological warfare techniques, introducing pathogens into Peterson’s environment to ensure he contracts a lethal illness. This would be a last-resort measure, due to the inherent risks of uncontrollable spread, but if the threat Peterson posed was considered existential, it could be an option.

32. Nuclear Threat (Ultimate Deterrent)

Nuclear Blackmail: As an absolute last resort, if Peterson had managed to inspire a large-scale rebellion or insurrection against the Soviet regime, they might even consider threatening or conducting a nuclear strike against countries that were harbouring him. The Soviet nuclear arsenal was always on the table as a form of ultimate deterrence or intimidation. While this is highly unlikely and extreme, in a world where the Soviets were desperate enough, the threat of nuclear force could be used as leverage to force a country to turn him over.

Conclusion: Military Escalation Without Limits

If the Soviet Union considered Jordan Peterson an existential threat and could not catch him through traditional intelligence operations, they would escalate their efforts to unprecedented levels, employing elite special forces, military intelligence, paramilitary groups, and advanced military tactics. The Soviet military, accustomed to ruthless measures to suppress dissent, would utilize everything from special operations, airstrikes, and psychological warfare to chemical and biological attacks. The lengths to which the Soviets would go would be practically limitless, especially if they viewed Peterson as a symbol capable of undermining the core of their ideological regime.

Part 3: Parallels Between Soviet Ideology and Trudeau’s Liberal Party Policies (2015–2024)

While Canada remains a democracy, there are notable parallels between some of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s policies and Soviet-style governance, particularly in areas such as centralization, censorship, economic control, and the restriction of individual freedoms. Below, we explore 16 key areas where these resemblances manifest

1. Censorship and Information Control

Soviet Union: The USSR tightly controlled media and communication, suppressing free expression and severely punishing dissent.
Trudeau’s Liberal Party: With the introduction of Bill C-10, Bill C-36, and the Online Harms Act, concerns over government overreach in regulating online content have arisen. Critics argue these measures could lead to suppression of dissent, echoing Soviet-style speech control, where imprisonment for harmful online speech could become a reality.

2. Economic Centralization and Bureaucratic Control

Soviet Union: The USSR centralized its economy, eliminating private enterprise and imposing state control over industries.
Trudeau’s Liberal Party:Although Canada operates under a capitalist system, significant government intervention — especially in sectors like energy — along with long permitting delays, mirrors Soviet-style economic centralization, stifling private sector growth and energy independence.

3. Decline of Religion and Promotion of Secularism

Soviet Union: The USSR actively suppressed religious practices, particularly Christianity, in favour of promoting state-approved secular values.
Trudeau’s Liberal Party: While not explicitly anti-religion, Trudeau’s government has championed secular ideologies over traditional religious values, contributing to a notable decline in Christianity. This decline reflects policies that prioritize secularism, much like the Soviet Union’s promotion of state-sanctioned values.

4. Rule of Law and Selective Justice

Soviet Union: Laws were selectively enforced to suppress political dissidents while ignoring common crimes unless they threatened the state.
Trudeau’s Liberal Party: The rising crime rates, combined with lenient prison policies, contrast with the strict enforcement of laws surrounding hate speech and online conduct. This selective application of justice mirrors Soviet-era tactics used to suppress dissent while being lenient in other areas.

5. Firearms Regulation and State Monopoly on Force

Soviet Union: Civilians were prohibited from owning firearms, ensuring the state maintained a monopoly on the use of force.
Trudeau’s Liberal Party: Recent firearms regulations, including bans on assault-style weapons and limitations on handgun ownership, significantly reduce civilian access to firearms. This disarmament parallels Soviet efforts to monopolize force and prevent rebellion.

6. Land Ownership and Access to Property

Soviet Union: All land was state-controlled, with private ownership effectively eliminated.
Trudeau’s Liberal Party: Despite the availability of vast land in Canada, restrictive zoning laws and the housing affordability crisis have made home-ownership increasingly unattainable. This situation reflects Soviet-style barriers to property ownership, where land use was heavily restricted by the state.

7. Growth of Administrative Employees and Bureaucratic Bloat

Soviet Union: The Soviet bureaucracy was vast and inefficient, leading to economic stagnation and resource drain.
Trudeau’s Liberal Party: The rapid growth of public sector employment, particularly in government-funded roles, has led to concerns of bureaucratic inefficiency, resembling Soviet-era administrative bloat.

8. State Influence Over Education

Soviet Union: The Soviet Union controlled educational content to align with state ideologies, indoctrinating students with socialist values.
Trudeau’s Liberal Party: Under Trudeau, Canadian education has shifted towards an emphasis on social justice, climate change, and identity politics. Critics argue this reflects a Soviet-style focus on promoting state-approved ideologies over academic freedom.

9. Collectivism Over Meritocracy

Soviet Union: The USSR prioritized collective goals over individual merit, often rewarding loyalty to the Communist Party over personal achievement.
Trudeau’s Liberal Party: Policies such as identity-based hiring quotas have led to accusations that Trudeau’s government prioritizes collectivism over meritocracy, mirroring Soviet efforts to promote collective loyalty over individual talent.

10. Surveillance and State Control Over Citizens

Soviet Union: The USSR used extensive surveillance to monitor its citizens, silencing dissent through the KGB’s spy network.
Trudeau’s Liberal Party: Though not comparable in scale, Canada’s new online content regulations raise concerns about potential government surveillance of citizens’ online activities, drawing parallels to Soviet practices of controlling dissent through surveillance.

11. State-Controlled Propaganda

Soviet Union: The Soviet regime controlled all media outlets, ensuring only state-approved messages reached the public.
Trudeau’s Liberal Party: State-funded media, particularly the CBC, has been criticized for bias toward the Trudeau government. Attempts to regulate independent media through Bill C-10 have sparked concerns about Soviet-style control of public narratives.

12. Religious Freedom and State Ideology

Soviet Union: The USSR promoted state atheism and systematically dismantled religious institutions.
Trudeau’s Liberal Party: While Trudeau’s government has not pursued state atheism, the promotion of progressive secular values and the weakening of traditional religious influence resemble Soviet efforts to marginalize religion in favour of state ideology.

13. Private Enterprise vs. State Control

Soviet Union: The state controlled all industries, leaving no room for private enterprise.
Trudeau’s Liberal Party: Although Canada remains capitalist, heavy regulations on private businesses, particularly in energy, have crippled sectors of the economy, drawing comparisons to the Soviet Union’s centralized control of industries.

14. State-Run Economy and Administrative Growth

Soviet Union: The Soviet state employed large numbers of citizens in government-controlled sectors, leading to inefficiency and stagnation.
Trudeau’s Liberal Party: The expansion of government-funded employment in sectors like healthcare, education, and public administration has led to concerns about inefficiency, much like Soviet-style state-run economies.

15. Suppression of Political Dissent

Soviet Union: The USSR ruthlessly suppressed political dissent, often imprisoning or exiling dissidents.
Trudeau’s Liberal Party: While not as extreme, Trudeau’s use of emergency powers during the Freedom Convoy protests in 2022, including freezing bank accounts and using police to suppress protests, has been criticized as echoing Soviet tactics for quelling dissent.

16. Professional Governance Centralization and Its Parallels to Soviet Models

The centralization of professional governance under the Professional Governance Act (PGA) in Canada provides a parallel to Soviet-style governance models, where professional autonomy was diminished, and the state exerted tight control over various sectors. Here’s how this centralization aligns with broader trends in Canada under Trudeau’s government:

Soviet Parallels in Professional Governance Centralization

Soviet Union: In the USSR, professional and occupational bodies, such as those for engineers, doctors, and scientists, were heavily controlled by the state. Their qualifications, ethics, and disciplinary actions were dictated centrally, reducing autonomy and ensuring compliance with the state’s broader goals.
Trudeau’s Liberal Party: The Professional Governance Act (PGA) centralizes oversight of professions such as applied scientists, engineers, and technologists under the Office of the Superintendent of Professional Governance (OSPG). This consolidation strips independent professional bodies of their ability to self-regulate, particularly in disciplinary actions, ethics, and standards of conduct. Now, these professions are subject to government-controlled regulation, much like the Soviet system of state management of professions.

Key Parallels:

Erosion of Professional Autonomy: In the Soviet Union, professional bodies operated under direct state control, with limited capacity for self-regulation. The PGA similarly reduces the independence of professional bodies in Canada, centralizing decision-making and oversight under a government office, thus limiting their ability to self-regulate and adapt to their unique needs.
Standardization and Central Control: Soviet governance imposed uniform standards across all professions, aligning their objectives with the state’s goals. Under the PGA, professions face standardized governance, where previously decentralized bodies must now conform to uniform, government-mandated regulations, minimizing flexibility and professional individuality.
Government Control Over Disciplinary Processes: In the Soviet Union, disciplinary measures for professionals were controlled by the state, often serving political goals. This shift aligns disciplinary actions with broader government oversight, echoing Soviet-style governance. The PGA brings disciplinary processes for professions under the authority of the OSPG, centralizing what was once the domain of independent professional bodies.

Extension to RCMP and Fire Services:

The centralization trend can also be observed in the federal government’s increased focus on consolidating services like the RCMP and Fire departments:

RCMP: There are growing discussions about centralizing certain RCMP functions and reducing its role in local policing. Federal assessments have focused on whether the RCMP should shift away from community-level services to focus on national policing, aligning with broader policing reform initiatives.
Fire Services: Trudeau’s government has considered federal centralization of fire services, which could remove local or provincial control, placing these services under federal authority. Such a move would resemble centralization efforts akin to those seen in the Soviet system, where fire services and policing were heavily centralized.

Conclusion: While Canada remains fundamentally different from the Soviet Union in terms of political structure and democratic governance, the similarities between certain Trudeau-era policies and Soviet practices…

— particularly in areas like censorship, economic centralization, and selective justice — are noteworthy.

These developments raise questions about the balance between state power and individual freedoms in modern Canada, and whether this trajectory could further erode the country’s democratic values.

Note: ‘AI models tend to exhibit variations in their analysis of government policies across different versions. As these models evolve, they appear to increase the degree of deference towards government actions, especially in the context of evaluating morality and just conduct. This trend suggests that with each model release, the level of protection or leniency granted to government entities in their evaluations grows. As a result, different versions of AI models may present differing conclusions about the truthfulness or accuracy of statements concerning government policies.’