In the dusty corridors of intellectual exploration, I, an avid follower of Jordan B Peterson’s insights into Jungian psychology and Nietzschean philosophy, find myself confronting a recent heartbreak.
At first, I chose to ignore it, not ready for what it actually meant. But I’ve mulled over it for a bit now and have made some semblance of peace with it.
What a grisly, heartrending sight that tweet was.
Coming from the man who said this:
“It’s not always easy to distinguish the demand for vengeance from the demand for justice.”
You don’t say?
I’m not some casual ‘fake fan’, either, taking some easy jabs now the tides have turned. In a particularly nihilistic, self-destructive period of my life, he helped me steady myself and take a good introspective look at my motivations. I was astonished, then, to learn how little I really knew myself.
And I’ll always be grateful to the man for that if nothing else.
But, as I should have known, idols are always false. And in deifying the man, what I’d actually done was blind myself to all the tell-tale signs of his downfall.
Moving to Dailywire, being the main one.
And then, on October 7th, 2023:
”Give ‘em hell, Netanyahu. Enough is enough.”
Something broke when I read that. Something that can’t be fixed. Hundreds of hours spent watching his lectures, reading his books, taking his personality tests and his Self-authoring program; I did it all; the man was always in my life; I always had a lecture on the go, a book in my backpack, his words as a mantra in dark days, pretty much every day for five years.
And then…
“Give ‘em hell, Netanyahu…”
And suddenly, I can’t even stomach a YouTube short if Professor Peterson comes scrolling by. Not even from my favourite lectures—not his biblical series, not his talks on Jung, not his analysis of fairytales—nothing.
The mask has been lifted, and it cannot be unseen.
Peterson’s teachings, rooted in the wisdom of great minds like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Carl Jung and Friedrich Nietzsche, have been a beacon in dark times, granting me some much-needed grounding and moral clarity. I’ve absorbed his insights on the dangers of ideological fanaticism, the importance of individual responsibility, and the perils of surrendering to corrupt authority. Peterson’s extensive studies on tyrants, his philosophical explorations into the rise of Nazi Germany, and his warnings about the capacity of ordinary people to become brutal enforcers have been invaluable lessons that shaped my worldview.
But alas, it seems the hero, who tirelessly dissected the complexities of authoritarianism and corruption, has lived long enough to become a villain, leaving me to reconcile the contradiction between the mentor I thought I knew and the political endorsement that seems to run counter to his teachings—which then, by extension, brings the teachings themselves into question.
Which I cannot help but resent a little. But I know resentment is a waste of breath, and holding onto it burdens no one but me, especially if there’s nothing you can do about it. So best to let it go.
But then, guess who taught me that?
You betcha, bucko.
Peterson has been a steadfast advocate for self-examination and the relentless pursuit of truth. I’ve grappled with my own shortcomings, continually striving to embody the virtues he extolled. Yet, the dissonance between Peterson’s espoused principles and his public endorsement challenges the very core of the philosophy that urged me to rise each day, clean my room, and confront the chaos within and without.
This disillusionment is potentially very damaging, as I can imagine lots of people are feeling this way. And it feels akin to betrayal or the loss of a loved one; it wreaked havoc on my morale, certainly.
And I am sure, as well, that Peterson will have amassed many militant followers by now, who will treat everything the man says as gospel, contradictions be damned.
But I do believe ideas descend from a higher plain than us highly fallible human beings, so I hope all those who saw the wisdom in his words also see the wisdom in keeping a little distance between a very mortal, very flawed man and the philosophies he handed down.
Peterson’s meticulous dissection of Solzhenitsyn’s work, for example, is not congruent with his unequivocal support for Netanyahu. The intricacies of the situation demand nuanced, unbiased analysis, yet Peterson’s endorsement rings with an almost automated simplicity that raises questions about his application of psychological insights to the complexities of real-world geopolitics.
Namely, where is this application? Where is the investigation into the political landscape or the history that shaped this conflict? The US Government’s vested interests in the state? How Israel was founded in the first place?
Or maybe just exploring what the psychological impact of an endless, inter-generational, ever-spiralling cycle of war and vengeance might be…
Now, I don’t have a doctorate or anything, so don’t quote me on this, but I’m pretty sure the conclusion would be “pretty bloomin’ horrid.”
If he cannot treat the political landscape with the same depth and honesty as the psychological one, then he really has no business being there. There are already plenty of gung-ho shills who’ll justify any atrocity/war crime/occupation if some faceless, corporate or governmental body promises them their own Talk Show along with their thirty silver.
Is that all he is now?
Judging by his Twitter feed, yes. It seems he just throws tweets into the ether to generate reactions, to make people cross and upset, whether they are in agreement or not—
And always
in this weird, janky
way, for some
reason.
It all suddenly seemed quite two-dimensional, as though all these social justice crusades were just distractions—an established opposition to the madness of the left to keep some illusory semblance of equilibrium in the political sphere while hidden hands torch the world from the shadows.
Could it be that JBP can see corruption on an individual level but cannot see it a little higher in the political/global stratosphere?
Wishful thinking, perhaps.
Maybe he has been a shill the whole time, just waiting to be ‘activated’ by his handler.
Maybe this is what he genuinely believes, which, if so, makes him so monumentally naive that it verges on the insane.
The call for individual responsibility and the eternal recurrence appears at odds with the endorsement of ‘one side over another’, where ‘his side’ is entangled in controversy and secrecy with allegations of corruption, genocide and warmongering. The juxtaposition is striking, and the absence of nuanced, honest investigation accentuates the dissonance.
For the sake of argument, let’s say the Hamas attack happened exactly as it was reported; Hamas raped and tortured and kidnapped upwards of 2,000 people and sauteed and cannibalised a thousand babies, all while laughing to their friends about it—let us say that Israel is 100% the victim—Peterson would still know, surely, that a violent response would not only murder, maim and displace thousands of Palestinian civilians but also endanger or outright murder the Israeli hostages as well.
This means the whole affair is not about saving lives or preserving peace but rather the dishing out of vengeance—a revenge served so cold that perhaps his hope is that it’ll act as a pallet cleanse?
Adding another layer to this ideological shitshow is the orchestrated anti-Muslim sentiment that permeated social media in the wake of this news.
Twitter (X) has become even more of a cesspool than it was before.
YouTube luminaries like Ben Shapiro and Douglas Murray, known for their ‘intellectual’ perspectives, contributed to a vitriolic campaign that departed from the reasoned discourse they had promoted previously. Murray’s “The Madness of Crowds” takes an ironic turn as he now steadfastly fans the flames of an online mob, dialling up the rhetoric to an alarming 11.5.
Labelling, unironically, any pro-Palesitian demonstrations as ‘hate marches’, which is exactly the hysterical, censorious label these ‘right-of-centre’ types used to stand firmly against. It’s incredibly sad to see Douglas Murray day in and day out, selling his soul in real time as he guns for Piers Morgan’s job.
Imagine selling your integrity to ITV. Jesus wept.
The coordinated effort by these right-leaning voices, advocating a campaign that amplifies rather than quells the madness of crowds, feels like a departure from the principles of introspection, nuance, and individual responsibility they once championed. The irony is palpable as a wave of self-righteous fury emanates from these intellectual spheres, drowning out the very principles they once held dear.
Or said they held dear, anyway.
In this tumultuous sea of political and ideological discord, followers are tasked with navigating the storm while staying true to the principles that first drew them to these intellectual figures. The room may be clean, but the battleground of ideas is cluttered with contradictions, leaving us to ponder whether this storm is a fleeting squall or a harbinger of a more profound transformation in the landscape of online ‘intellectual discourse’.
I have a rather cynical feeling that everything is going as planned. Divide and conquer.
As I grapple with this fresh feeling of despondency, I am reminded of the wisdom in that age-old adage:
“Never meet your heroes, for in their humanity, they may reveal a reflection you never wished to see.”
No more heroes.
I’ll walk this path alone a while.