Jordan Peterson is an enigmatic figure in today’s world. He rose to prominence due to his refusal to use transgender pronouns if their use was made compulsory by the Canadian state, exploding to international superstardom as clips of his refusal were shared around online. Given his past relations with globalist institutions and links to many alphabet organisations many have accused him of being an astroturfed globalist plant. Evidence of this can be seen in this spider web diagram regarding his links and connections.
Vox Day asserts that Peterson represents a safe, acceptable, faux opposition to globalist liberal ideological hegemony. When in reality he is not at all different from them, he merely thinks that they are moving too fast for people to accept, and if they were to just slow down a touch then they would be more successful in achieving their goals.
The intention behind his unparalleled rise to international attention was to halt Right-wing collective thinking and Nationalism, or more succinctly, the Right conceiving of the nation and its people as more than just a mass of individual consumers. This is why he was allowed to appear on almost all mainstream news and entertainment programmes, despite being labelled as one of the most dangerous ‘Right-wing’ thinkers. This ought to arouse suspicion, even in the slowest mind. Do you think the establishment would ever allow a genuinely anti-establishment Right-wing figure to appear on their propaganda shows? Of course not, the likes of Jared Taylor, E Michael Jones, or our very own Ulick Fitzhugh will never be paraded around the mainstream lest they begin to gain more followers.
Nevertheless, if this was their intention, to roll him out to stop young men going onto the Alt-Right —which was rising at the time— then their success was limited. Anyone who was curious enough to look into the Alt-Right or Dissident Right was always going to end up there anyway, arguably he was acting in typical Conservative fashion, only slowing down the inevitable.
Given that his role is to ‘deradicalize’ young men and move them away from Nationalism back to ‘classical liberal individualism’ some may be surprised at his apparent shift to the Right in recent months. Do not be mistaken, he will only go as Right as they allow him to so that he can pull as many people as he can away from ‘the extreme or far Right’. No matter how Right he moves it will always be within a liberal framework and is only moving Right to keep up with the general movement online of young men.
These controlled opposition figures will always emerge during a period of intense enthusiasm and momentum gains for our cause. These figures, which have long been prepared in the shadows –away from the light—suddenly burst forth into the light to bring an end to the drama, to restore a semblance of balance to the body politic. They portray themselves as a rational middle ground between two irrational extremes. You will notice this phenomenon never appears on the left, their extreme continues to push the boundary further left while the Right is pulled further left or stopped from moving further Right. Beware of such figures.
Peterson has spoken out on the topic of ‘when the Right goes too far’. According to Peterson, the Right goes too far whenever a conversation is had about a collective of similar beings with an attachment to any National ideal. He specifically denounces the idea of this kind of nationalism as having “crossed the damned line”, further describing the idea as “dangerous”. This is exactly the same narrative pushed by the globalists. It is clearly demonstrated here that Peterson is no friend of Nationalism. What is not so obvious is how Jordan Peterson’s pernicious definition of truth is a bane to the cause of nationalism.
Peterson’s definition of Truth is difficult to pin down as in different interviews or in different lectures he has given a myriad of different definitions. Most commonly he reiterates a definition of Truth heavily inspired by Friedrich Nietzsche. Peterson has delineated Truth, separating it into what he calls Newtonian Truth and Darwinian Truth. Peterson’s contention is that Newtonian Truth is “truth as defined by the axioms of the materialist philosophy” and Darwinian truth is “truth that allows you to survive and reproduce”. Well, isn’t that convenient, by proposing two contradictory definitions of Truth, Peterson can jump from one to the other when trapped to weasel his way out of a bind.
Peterson focuses more on his Darwinian definition and that is the one I’ll focus on here. Expanding on the Darwinian definition he has said: “Truth is that which serves life in a Darwinian fashion”. Moreover, he has also expressed this definition in such a way that leaves no room for the Newtonian view as he puts it, by saying “The fundamental axiom that I’m playing with is something that was basically expressed by Nietzsche, it’s a definition of Truth –and so I would say; if it doesn’t serve life, then it’s not true”. Going further still he claimed, “from a Darwinian perspective, there isn’t any truth past that”.
The problem with his definition of Truth is that it has no sense of the Absolute or the Transcendent, lending itself to be almost no different from relativism or modernism. With no grounding in the Absolute or the Transcendent there is no meaning to truth. This begs the question, who determines whether or not something serves life? Is it merely an after the fact acknowledgement that because someone acted in such a way and survived, therefore what he did and said was true?
There are plenty of ways of pointing out the incongruity of Peterson’s Truth definition with rather simple examples. When he espoused this definition of Truth against Sam Harris in a debate, Harris pointed out the following example: Imagine a man was to find out that his wife was cheating on him and was so despaired that he decided to kill himself. Well in this case, the fact his wife was having an affair cannot be true as that information didn’t serve the man in survival. The absurdity of this position is plain for all to see in this case. If his wife was having an affair then it is true, regardless of whether the man decides to kill himself or not.
Taking simple, readily understood concepts, and redefining them to suit what he is saying in the present moment is par for the course for Peterson. Worse still, he gives multiple meanings and contradictory definitions of these concepts, making it almost impossible to determine exactly what it is he means, is talking about, or believes. The worst example of this is the meaningless word salad he produced when asked a very simple question: “Do you believe that Jesus rose again from the dead?” Originally stumped by this question, Peterson collects his thoughts for a moment before proclaiming “I find I cannot answer that question and the reason is because … ok let me think about it for a minute and see if I can come up with a reasonable answer to that”.
Again, Peterson collects his thoughts before coming up with arguably the most pompous and pretentious possible answer, to what was a pretty straight forward yes or no question. Peterson snickers to himself as he marvels at the agility of his tongue and the virtuosity of his lying, before saying “Well the first answer would be, it depends on what you mean by Jesus”.
It really is incredible to think this charlatan has been proclaimed as one of the great thinkers of our time. Then again, he’s not lying, if you accept his definition then this answer was in fact the perfect answer. He tips his fedora to his atheist followers who would have abandoned him if he proclaimed himself a Christian, and also does not alienate his Christian followers by saying he does not believe. Therefore, he can maintain two diametrically opposed segments of his audience who continue to buy his books or watch his lectures and support him financially, increasing his survival chances and so what he says, by his definition, is true.
Whenever you attempt to grasp what Peterson believes, your hand closes on a jelly-like slime which divides up and pours out through your fingers, only to collect itself again on the other side and come out whole. He wriggles his way out of any bind by playing the ‘Hatchling’. The Hatchling is a character played by intellectual charlatans who have no interest in an honest discussion, but rather, only personal gain; when arguing with them they act as if they have only just been hatched out of an egg. They have just come into the world with no a priori knowledge of history, language, philosophy or even common sense. The hatchling must have everything explained to them as they continue to ask questions to which everyone already knows the answer, by doing this they can derail and undermine every conversation.
The ridiculousness of Peterson’s definitions of Truth baffle the mind, particularly when Rule 8 of Jordan Peterson’s ‘12 Rules for Life’ is: “Tell the truth –or at least don’t lie”. Well now that Truth has been boiled down to relativism, how can Peterson ever accuse anyone of lying if they are doing it narcissistically to benefit themselves in survival? I suppose, when it benefits him, he will climb back over the fence to the Newtonian conception.
Operating under Peterson’s conception of Truth promotes the worst in man. Machiavellianism runs amok as every man is out for himself and damned be the consequences of his actions. This ‘individualism on steroids’ is equal parts symptom and catalyst in the decline of Europe, and Western civilisation and culture as a whole.
The unfortunate Truth is that Peterson’s definition is the governing definition of the West today. Due to the powers that be, many commonly held ideas have been turned on their heads. The elites use their power in the entertainment industry, NGO complex, academia, and media to disrupt and destroy what used to be the West. Primordial concepts such as male and female, truth and untruth, beauty and unbeauty, good and evil, have all been decimated and obfuscated. Despite many knowing what the Truth really is, they refuse to speak out, they stay quiet to not become a social pariah or to lose their jobs. These comfort-seekers have wilfully gone along with the tide of destruction which we are told is ‘progress’ to not risk anything for the sake of gaining nothing.
How many people tacitly support the trans agenda, not because they believe, but because there might be some risks to survival chances if they do not, or the homosexual agenda, or the feminist revolution, or the sexual revolution, the list goes on and on. Most interestingly has been the covid saga. The “trust the experts” and the “trust the science” crowd have shown themselves to be nothing but sheep following orders and being corralled into whatever pen was necessary for them on their way to the slaughterhouse. The Kafkaesque nightmare of ever-changing rules, ever-changing Truth, and ever-changing orders did not startle these people in the slightest. They existed as the physical manifestation of Jordan Peterson’s truth. They simply believed whatever was necessary to live a comfortable and non-confrontational life, not risking any impact to their survival chances for the sake of any higher ideals such as courage, honour, or Truth.
The benefit this definition of Truth has for the elites is unparalleled. In 1984 Orwell dubbed this sort of thought as “doublethink”, the act of holding two contradictory beliefs despite any discomfort or friction with their own memory or worldview. This idea suits the ruling elite perfectly, in order to survive, you must accept all that they dare hoist upon you, for fear of backlash and possible death. Of course, we are not quite at the stage yet wherein denying the divine beauty of Ebun Joseph will be punishable by death, but any outspoken criticism of the LGBSTD community is likely to get one fired.
Moreover, what exactly does Peterson mean by survive? I hate to parrot the man himself by asking “well it depends on what you mean by X?” but in this case it is a worthy criticism. Accepting his viewpoint for just a moment, that Truth is that which increases your chances of survival, we ask the question, what is meant by survival. Indeed, there is the Christian view that if you accept Jesus Christ you will have eternal life and survive, but here, I will discuss the material and genetic survival as opposed to something more metaphysical or spiritual.
Simply put, the essence of biological survival and successful reproduction is the passing on of one’s genetic material. This goal can be accomplished in two ways, of course the obvious reproduction and rearing of one’s own children, but also by aiding your immediate family and your tribe or extended family through the acquisition of resources and protection. That is to say, for those who do not have children, if they help to ensure that their tribe or ethnic group –who are the most genetically similar to them—survive and reproduce, they too can pass on their genetics. The case is being made here for nationalism and conceiving of the state as a vehicle for the preservation and advancement of a people. From this, the state can be seen as a means to an end. The goal of this ‘nationalist’ state would be the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and spiritually similar beings. The highest concern for this state should be the preservation of its original elements, those elements which founded the nation and created its culture and society.
If we take this conception, and then, view it through the lens of Peterson, we can see that his ‘classical liberal individualism’ is entirely at odds with this goal. Europeans have been systematically attacked and subverted through ideology, self-guilt and loathing, a hatred of our past glory and our very identity. As the birth-rates continue to plummet and the population begins to age in most liberal individualist states we see a general diminishing of those peoples. Therefore, we could conclude, that Jordan Peterson’s ‘classical liberal individualism’ is false, as this ideology is not allowing these societies to survive but is in fact, through contraception and abortion, killing those societies. Moreover, due to the atomisation and isolation these individualist societies create, and the effects of these phenomena on spiritual health, it could be further argued that these societies also cause a spiritual death.
We are met here with a major contradiction in the worldview of Peterson. It’s not as if he or his followers care in the slightest, and it’s not as if the globalists care either. There is no contradiction to them, as by their eliminating the only group capable of any real opposition to their plans, they will survive. This demonstrates that Peterson’s definition only serves those already in power, that is, those who have the ability to punish any and all dissent and impose their truth on the world. While also imposing the idea that anyone who goes against them is against the truth, for if the elite kill you for disagreeing with them, you were of course wrong because you didn’t survive.
The case made so far should be clear to all. Peterson is no friend of ours and is certainly not friendly to our cause. The decline of our societies can almost solely be attributed to Peterson’s classical liberal individualism, and as such, his wish to return to an older form of what is the current ruling ideology of the West will not save us. As Julius Evola so eloquently put it “The great illusion of our days is that democracy and liberalism are the antithesis of Communism and have the power to stem the tide of the forces of the low, what is called the ‘progressive movement’… This illusion is like saying that dusk is the antithesis of night, that an illness’s incipient stage is the antithesis of its acute and endemic stage, or that a diluted poison is the antithesis of the same poison in its pure and concentrated state”. It was exactly the presuppositions of Peterson’s worldview that led us into this mess, why then should we trust those same presuppositions to lead us out of it?
If the Right wants to make any ground in the coming years, it will have to rid itself of any strands of liberal individualism. The situation in Europe is a ticking time-bomb, that if we don’t solve before the clock runs out, will destroy our nations to such an extent that rebuilding them may just be impossible. If we want to survive, and flourish, we must necessarily rid ourselves of the pernicious effects of liberal individualism and return to a more traditional and collective way of conceiving of the nation, the state, and society at large. A return to an absolutist view of Truth is also a necessary precondition for any meaningful transformation of the West. It is necessary to acknowledge that, regardless of popular opinion, some things are true, and that, there are certain ideals which a society should strive towards –the Transcendent and the Absolute