Rejecting Peterson the Priest


i would like to critique peterson on one specifically ridiculous point of his otherwise similarly ridiculous ouvere of ideological mystifications which he likes to call his "philosophy." i know this to be a tenant of his "thought" because i have a friend, a best friend, who has unfortunately been indoctrinated into peterson's cult-with-no-name, or as we could also put it "the cult of conservative ideology." for peterson, marxism or generally revolutionary thought is pointless, because as they so annoyingly put it, "of COURSE the world is bad, of COURSE you suffer, to reject this is to reject human nature as such! your opposition of the barbaric actions ruling order is pathological, because the State can only be oppositional to your interests, and you'd better clean your room and shape up/sort yourself out, because it is your DUTY to conform to the interests of those who lord over every aspect of your livelyhood (also somehow i claim to give a fuck about the "individual")!" It truly is absolute ideology of the highest order.

There is an idea within religious studies which we can attribute to Pierre Bourdieu, where he politicizes the Weberian concept that there are two central figures in any given religious movement, a priest and a prophet. For Bourdieu, the prophet is, due to their very position, a revolutionary; they use the language of the religious context they situate themselves in in order to advocate a radical change of this very same context, they seek change not from an external entity from the dominant order, they want to use the order TO CHANGE THE ORDER ITSELF. The easy and obvious example of a prophet is jesus, who managed to create christianity from judaism by using the language of judaism itself. the reactionary opposition to this is embodied in the priest. the priest, in the face of the threat posed by the prophet, radically asserts the ruling religious dogma, he doubles down on his ideological assertion that the context which the ruling order has created is the "natural state of things," that the way things are is a NECESSARY formulation, that any proposed alternative to this is irrational (think of the pharisees' priestly response to jesus). under this theoretical umbrella, peterson may be one of the most dillegent neoliberal priests operating today. the dog obeys his owners exceedingly well, he has perfected the craft of addressing the legitimate concerns of those who are subject to the order created by our masters, he has no trouble addressing the inequality faced by the working class (remember his slogan, "of course you're suffering"). he manages to recognize this while simultaneously telling the exploited that they for some reason need to, in his exhaustingly philistinian vocabulary, "bear the cross of their suffering;" that instead of recognizing that they are wrapped up in a system of governing which, surprise surprise, doesn't benefit them, instead of rejecting this garbage, they should apparently, without any amount of criticism, accept their social position, sort themselves out, and work hard enough to get a job which can allow them to live comfortably.

Other urls found in this thread:


alain badiou has an interview wherein he makes a fascinating distinction between happiness and satisfaction. satisfaction is to be associated with the freudian death drive; in death drive, we neurotics experience a certain jouissance from the performace of our symptom; when i enact the, usually self-destructive, ritual which governs my phenomal experience, there is a weird enjoyment that occurs when i fulfill my symbolic role. some kind of satisfaction happens when i accept things "as they are" and act as such. badiou draws a relationship between this perverse psychical enjoyment and the conservative notion of recognizing that the surrent social organization is "not," how they incessantly put it, "perfect, but it's the best we've got." this is death drive at its purest; you accept that the predicament you find yourself in is necessary, and hopelessly attempt to find a way to squeeze what little enjoyment out of it that you can. to be satisfied is to follow peterson's injunction to realize that "of course you're suffering," and that all there is to be done is find what jouissance you can out of, say, a well-paying job.

it should be obvious to anyone that this has nothing to do with happiness. happiness occurs when you refuse to give way to your desire. happiness is when you realize that the coordinates of the situation you're in don't allow for the actualization of your desire to happen, and as such the only option you have is to change these coordinates. happiness scoffs at the priestly idiot who tells you to accept a miserable situation because it is 'natural.' happiness justifies itself out of the fact that it is impossible as long as things stay the way they are. in short, happiness is revolutionary. marxists should not shy away from the old criticism that "marxism is just a political religion." Not only are we a religion, we are prophets. And we prophets will only exist as long as there are priests who wish to resist the realization of the prophetic desire of the proletarian class.

So this Peterson guy is an evangelist for conformism but he excuses conformism selling the idea that you can better yourself before making a better world?

bow down to your jungian science-priest

If there's one thing us communists hate, it's cults of personality!


i'm not sure what you're trying to say. he's unapologetically a conformist in all aspects, and has never once expressed an interest in a "better world"

yea pretty much


I mean, his philosophy blames you for not being successful

This was a surprisingly good post for how long it is. Bretty almond activating

and at the same time whines about "the decline of the individual"

if happiness is an emotion, then happiness is a choice


i'm clearly trying to articulate that it signifies something much larger than how you're feeling on a given day. can you read?

Read Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher.


Even if you're not American, I can almost guarantee your country engages in this same exact sort of shit, if not quite as egregiously.

i'm already familiar. i wanted to approach this idiot from a quasi-religious position for funsies

Devoting this much thought into revealing Peterson for the ignoramus he is is a fruitless pursuit.


i stand by everything in the post but yea im butthurt my bff thinks peterson is in any way legitimate

Your butthurt rage will only fuel the fire, either deal with the fact that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs or actually listen to what Peterson has to say, because he is right.

He isn't right though. He's your typical social scientist loser in western academia who gets off to justifying imperialism and reactionary politics.

No he is, you're just wrong. That's why OP's BFF would rather get his ideological stimulus from some youtuber than his actual friend he's knows personally for whatever amount of time

He's wrong about nearly everything he talks about and what he is right about isn't original, and is often so obvious and barebones that high schoolers regularly reach the same conclusions independently of him or other pseuds.

Which is why OP's best friend would rather listen to him than his Holla Forums friend? Tough break.

Totally unmarxist. Analysing anything that has influence and power is a worthwhile pursuit. Otherwise is worthless.

kek that's mighty pomo of you Holla Forumsyp

That's very narrow minded of you to say. No wonder OP's BFF would rather listen to Peterson than nazis like you.

jesus fucking christ

obviously people are "entitled to their own beliefs," i'm not the fucking thought police. my problem isn't that my friend has a different opinion than my own, it's that i think his opinion is wrong in every possible way.

what you're exemplifying here is peterson's hypocrisy; that somehow postmodernism is bad but also "everyone's beliefs are legitimate." this is the very basis of postmodern ideology! i'm annoyed because i am certain that my friend is incorrect. this is a fundamentally enlightenment-era understanding of things.

i'll reiterate the basic thesis of my OP, communism is going all the way with what we know to be true. this means drawing serious ideological divides when a friend is expressing reactionary values.

Deal with it faggot.

Well then kill yourself if you're going to be this much of a faggot about it. Just keep cutting people off for every little ideological difference you come across. Fucking lock yourself in your room because god forbid you see an entire world full of people who can think differently than you.

Get a fucking life.
Consider other people's ability to think for themselves.
Investigate flat earth.

But don't fucking go to Holla Forums with tears in your eyes asking for a Dr. Ruth advice column

i love how you're presuming knowledge of my own friendship here, and (how incidentally!) providing an interpretation of the nature of this friendship which just so happens to fit your ideological narrative.

you know literally NOTHING about this relationship. you have no idea how this particular relationship functions, and whether or not a party 'listens' to the other in the political sense i'm discussing here.

i have merely stated that he has embraced a thinker who i dislike.

I know enough that you came on here with tears in your eyes asking Holla Forums for a Dr. Ruth advice column

You ever heard this fucker talk about Marxism?
Just listen to this shit. This is an """academic""" who couldn't even be bothered to do a google search on "left critiques of the Soviet Union" and seems to believe that "Marxism" is a socio-economic system rather than a set of philosophy, political theory and critique of capitalist political economy.

This is the sort of shit I'd expect from a high schooler, not a tenured professor.

I struggle to understand what is your point, really.

He's dealing with it by engaging in debate.

How did you draw a conclusion that he cut someone off?

Are you suggesting that whenever someone has a different opinion, we should at all cost evade mentioning it?

If you explore a little bit about Peterson's life, you'll find out that his whole career is pretty much summed up to a Cold War propagandist. Ignorance, simplicity and dogmatism is all that he needs. Just as well, he doesn't really need to debate - instead - preach to the flock of people who already agree with him, to reinforce them against doubting their beliefs and grouping them together.

Lol yeah he makes a good point.

He's dealing with it by running away and cutting someone off instead of engaging his friend and trying to debate with him. Like a faggot.

Like I said, here he is bitching and contemplating ruining a friendship instead of debating his friend. Shockingly enough, you guys at Holla Forums may not know this, but debate can be quite fun and engaging and doesn't even need physical violence at all!


What's it like following Peterson while simultaneously holding this much of a post-modernist worldview?

my god you're a fucking idiot.

never once did i say that i have "cut him off" (spoiler alert: i haven't, most people are capable of having a friendship while majorly disagreeing politically). you're assuming that because i wrote this post that he and i haven't talked about this, for some reason

because i "Consider other people's ability to think for themselves" i have no problem criticizing the views of the friend in question. if i didn't think this, why would i bother engaging with them seriously?

after such an aggressive post, i'm forced to ask: what on earth are your friendships like? do you seriously think that critiquing their politics is such a heinous act? what do YOU do when you and a friend ideologically disagree?


You'd think he'd at least do the minimal amount of research about the topics he was trying to address, if only to steel his flock against counter-arguments.

You are pulling stuff up from your ass. Like an ass.
And again.

Mine are easy, I don;t give a fuck what my friends think Ideologically. I like them because I enjoy being around them. when we do get into that sort of debate, we usually keep it pretty tame, unless when we're drinking and then we're yelling. But most of the time we just talk about other shit, games, social things going on, whatever. We avoid it since neither of us want to get into that sort of engagement all the time

Just like communism?

Are you still worshipping Trump after he revealed himself to be nothing more than a tactless Hilary Clinton ? I think we have no wisdom to gain from you.

And now the shitposting is devolving into outright non sequiturs.

Is this the level of intellectual rigor we can expect from Peterson drones?

I lost a few during the debate, but they all did that themselves. They chose to cut off someone that was different than them to preserve their social echo chamber. The ones that stayed mean more to me now because it proved what my friendship really ment to them. I felt more of a welcomed being into their lives than a brick to support a personal preference wall.

Off topic, trying to derail this poor OP's post about his bestie

Not an argument.

Thanks. People like you make our job easier. Myself, I'm quite a bit of a politically minded person. I've indoctrinated half of my high school class, and many people at work and university in communism. I've also never ruined or worsened my relations - which include a literal flaming Nazi who is my partner at my job (pretty antisocial type, but has his uses), and "improve yourself instead of trying to stir up struggle" kind of psychiatry professor.

Unlike your stupid insult, mine was fully legitimate. You claim that OP "running away and cutting someone off instead of engaging his friend and trying to debate with him" and "contemplating ruining a friendship instead of debating his friend" despite he never ever slightly assumed that.

Can't have an argument when what you're responding to wasn't an argument. In fact, it didn't make any coherent sense at all, much less was an argument about anything.

Ok I embellished, whatever. what difference does it make to the point that OP is having problems with his friend based on one specific thing about him. And instead of confronting said friend he's on here complaining about how stupid the person his friend listens too is?

my god, the stupidity doesn't stop

never ONCE have i talked about "ruining a friendship." there is nothing itt suggesting that any serious division has ruptured between my friend and i, i simply said that i'm annoyed ("butthurt") about what is realistically a petty argument the two of us are having.

i honestly find it quite telling that you think me having an intellectual issue with my friend is tantamount to "running away and cutting someone off," as if having the basic honesty to say "i don't agree with you about this subject" is the same as abandoning a relationship. again, i am interested in what a "friend" means to you.

and here we see the alienated way you view social relations. true friendship is not defined by people you "enjoy being around," it is instead people who who understand that you are radically different from, and somehow you appreciate each other's presence despite this radical alterity. this kind of relation shows up in serious political debate.

Calling something not an argument isn't an argument to support not making an argument.

Jeez, no wonder your friend doesn;t care you're breaking up with him, you're very narrow minded and rude.

See pt2. My old friends were leftys

Learn to read, you stupid fuck. OP has said repeatedly that did not break up with him. It says it right here.
>there is nothing itt suggesting that any serious division has ruptured between my friend
>i honestly find it quite telling that you think me having an intellectual issue with my friend is tantamount to "running away and cutting someone off," as if having the basic honesty to say "i don't agree with you about this subject" is the same as abandoning a relationship.
A debate can't take place if you keep arguing in bad faith. I know Holla Forums always take the bait, but at that point, it's probably better to say that you're faggot and just move on.

Wow, is it this easy to derail a thread? I honestly wasn't even trying but it seems to get a lot of everyone else pretty butthurt and they can't seem to get off of it. Could you post more words please? I won't read them

at this point, i really think you may be projecting something onto this conversation. i have not once suggested that i have not confronted said friend (for the record, we've been having this exact conversation for weeks). why do you think a 'break up' is happening?

i talk like an asshole to people who i think are assholes, and buddy, you're an asshole.

in regards to the post you quoted, even more fascinating insight is gained into your strange conception of social relations. so, according to you, people stopped being your friend because they wanted to "preserve their echo chamber," or in other words, because they heavily disagreed with you (strange how your own language works against you, isn't it?). it then seems like the ones who didn't question your opinions then, incidentally i'm sure, became "the good ones," the ones who were your real friends.

i find it hilarious that you assume that i conceive of friendships on political lines when, in practice. i do the exact opposite; meanwhile political preferences clearly play a massive role in who you feel comfortable associating with

wow you were only pretending to be retarded damn you got me master ruseman

OP before the thread get's sgaes because the people you went too can't let off their autism, just understand that you're going to have to deal with it. If you are really this upset talk to your friend and debate him civilly. If that's too much just cut him off so you can stay within your comfy echo chamber. If neither of these matter than you're just being a faggot and bitching passive aggressively and too much of a pussy to confront this friend about what you believe in.

I'm sure there are some typos you could point out and criticize as well

oh grow a fucking pair you weakling. imagine what papa peterson would think of you now, how you're running away from the fact that you're clearly at a loss intellectually and your only recourse is to indulge in postmodern "i was only pretending" ideology. you're not fooling a goddamn person on this forum with this amateurish posturing, even when you try and post as someone else to provide yourself moral support, a la

come on bb go on, i want to feel outraged, go on, i love it when you make fun of me over the internet, please do bb, i can't get enough

:C Please no bully

It gets me that the internet right can't stop bitching about postmodernism, yet is probably the most postmodern ideology to date.

Sure, but can you be happy without feeling satisfied? And if you can then who gives a shit about being happy if you can still have a gaping whole missing in your life(Feeling unsatisfied).

I agree, OP needs to fuck his bestie to clear the air.

fuck you; you made this personal by calling into question a close relationship i offhandedly mentioned in the op and i refuse to stand for it. i refuse to give you the pomo exit wherein you get to graciously admit defeat by saying that you were only joking, leaving you ego untouched.

you were wrong, you're actually stupid, and you should be ashamed of the fact that you went so low as to call into question a relationship you have no knowledge of. i know you won't write a post where you acknowledge any of this, but i want you to know, personally, that you are garbage; because i'm certain that the behavior you have shown itt permeates your real social life, the way that you actually conceive of things. you feel alienated from your peers for a reason: it's because you're an asshole. what you want to do about that is up to you.

So wait how do you argue for communism agains the argument of fixing everyones grades in class so everybody gets the same grade no matter the quality or quantity of their work done, everyone gets the bare minimum D to pass.

That's not what communism is at all, that's a strawman.

Communism is children being graded on their performance on the test.

Capitalism is having one student "own" the class and every point above a D goes to them so that they make impossibly high grades whether or not they do any studying ever. And they might decide to let a couple students here and there have Cs in exchange for keeping the other students in line.

He's not right, he's right-wing and that's the opposite of being right about anything.

i would also like to very simply point out that what was originally a thread about A. how we conceive of communism today and B. why jordan peterson is trash; has somehow become a discussion of my private relationship with a friend. it's almost as if right wingers aren't capable of serious political analysis.

Do not tell me what to do you fucking maniac, and your opinions suck AND you are a retard.

He was actually going the Peterson route and trying to pathologize your disagreement with Peterson (with your friend acting as the proxy).

Its called gas lighting. Instead of addressing your argument, it's intended to make you feel like you're crazy or otherwise in the wrong for even having your beliefs.

It's basically cult shit.

It works better

*It works better when the person you're talking to isn't surrounded by like-minded people, though.

So if I get an A and another student gets an F, will I be accordingly rewarded much more handsomely, and the student who got an F given the bare minimum if not punished/re-educated?

You'll get more than the student with an F, but the student with the F won't go completely without.

Isn't that a little capitalistic, at least in theory? Individuals being rewarded based on their individual performance seems a far cry from "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

No, there's no property or capital involved.

It's "To each according to their contribution". That's a socialist slogan, by the way. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" isn't really possible until you've reached a higher stage in communist social development.

If no property or capital are involved then in what ways will the "greater contributors" be compensated?

More shit/nicer shit/higher positions.

As is usually the case with workers.

What is "shit" if not property and capital?

Personal possessions.

Food, furniture, appliances, entertainment, whatever.

So to conclude: what does communism theoretically want that is different from what capitalism theoretically wants? Abolition of absolute poverty? Pure meritocracy? etc?

Abolition of private property and commodity production.

But is this not a means rather than an end? What is the endgame of communism? (I offered a few suggestions in my previous post)

Probably because they paid for it?

Classless society is the end.

Yeah, they shuffled some paper around so they get their names on a government document. What absolute martyrs.

Ok but in what way will this serve the citizen and how is this better than anything capitalism can provide?

capitalism provides nothing. labour provides all

Even if access to things like university or public facilities like libraries have to be "rationed," if only for the simple fact that facilities large enough to house and service an entire population at once could be impractical at best. I don't think securing preferential access to facilities in exchange for performing unpleasant or otherwise necessary labor would be out of the question, as long as those priviIeges are based on currently or recently performed labor, anyway.

Things like that and other social incentives often work better than cash or simple material recompense. I don't really agree with the sentiment that "oh, they'll just get more stuff/better stuff/rarer stuff," because generally speaking everyone is entitled to those things. Personally, I think it's a symptom of our consumer society, the thinking that the only or best way to motivate people is just to give them stuff. I don't think it would be really very fair if one kid gets an NES while another kid gets a state of the art CommieStation, just because their guardians perform different work.

I don't think it would be bad though if these resources were held in common, like how DVDs are in a library, and doing something like sewer maintenance (or whatever, any kind of necessary or unpleasant work) put you at the front of the line to check it out. As long as this game system (or whatever) is guaranteed to everyone, and everyone gets a fair shake at using it, giving some people priviIeged position in the queue would be alright I think

The benefits of classless society are are almost too numerous to describe, but in short the biggest benefit is that the economy is run democratically by the people who do the work for the purpose of meeting need and accomplishing concrete goals rather than serving inhuman market forces for the purpose of enriching an idle few.

The exact form of recompense doesn't really matter, and theorizing about it is utopianism. We can't know the exact circumstances under which communism will arise, so we can't know what the best form of compensation will be. What's important is that people who are "high performers" will be compensated for their greater contribution to society in some way.

Fudge off, you fuck

But it is.

If the end creates a society who's only goal is to provide the bare minimum wouldn't classless society then naturally lead towards stagnation and lack of improvements because "why torture myself if I gain nothing additional over my neighbor". Work is torture, and pretty much anything that helps enforce a humans "rights" either creates conflict with another person's rights, or requires some form of work to be done.

Not true, by the way

that's not the goal

Have you ever done farm work before?

I thought flat earth was just a meme, am I wrong in that assumption? Are there unironical flat earthers on Holla Forums?

I have, as well as construction work and landscaping. Capitalism makes this kind of work hell due to exploitation.

What? Who even implied this?

That's not how motivation works.

Work doesn't have to be torture, and your fellow man doesn't need to be an adversary. These are things created by class society and intensified under capitalism.

Thank you for all of your responses hammer&sickle and other anons.

Yes and atleast "cults of personalities" like the one stalin apperantly had was well earned since he did a shit ton for the nation and won WW2

This is a really good post OP, would you be interested in adapting it into an Article for Spectre Rouge, that way it would be more permanent and easier to share?

I would be very interested! Do you need an email address or something similar?

Also, based on the length of the other articles I'm seeing on the site, I'm assuming you'd want a longer piece than what I have here?

A little bit longer would be nice, but don't tucker yourself out.

Just email it to me at [email protected]

To be fair, you have to have a very high Autism Level to understand Jordan Peterson. The insight is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of the degeneration of western civilization most of the jokes will go over a typical recipiants head. There's also Jordan's pseudointellectual outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws exclusively from psychology literature, Carl Jung for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these ramlbings, to realize that they're not just funny- they say something deep about CULTURAL MARXISM. As a consequence, people who dislike Jordan Peterson truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the self-help in Jordan's existential catchphrase "Clean Your Room!" which itself is a cryptic reference to Molyneux's epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those post-modern simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Petersons genius unfolds itself on their computer screens. What fools… how I pity them. And yes by the way, I DO have a Carl Jung tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're willing to have 5 children of my own and no professional ambition beforehand.

edgy as fuck

might as well not be copypasta tbqh

Honestly, this secular religion America has got going is an extremely successful example of soft social control, the kind that they tried in the French Revolution and flopped, and the gommies overshot to an abominable extent.

He sounds and acts like a betafaggot who thinks hes smart. I dont respect him or the things he say.

This is excellent, you've really hit the nail on the head with this one. I think you've really done a good job of phrasing the oppositions between Peterson and the sort of ideology he pushes and what I would call the utopian leftism of communists, socialists etc. I'm completely on your friends/peterson's side on this one though so let me try and make a case for why Peterson is correct and this is more than just conformism or death drive. There is some real stuff to be criticized about capitalism but I want to pick on what you've said about happiness and the natural state of the world.

Life is absolutely suffering, this is the fundamental insight of Buddhism and a lot of existentialism. To exist brings the possibility of non-existence, to have brings the possibility of loss, to trust brings the possibility of betrayal. And worse we as humans are not made to be happy all the time, dopamine system is a reward system. Your dopamine system does not fire when you are just sitting in a warm pool with no wants or desires. It fires when you overcome challenges, when you learn, when you see something unexpected. If your view of human nature is that we strive to be happy, or contented or not to experience pain then dark souls makes no fucking sense. Short of nirvana or death pain is the inevitable consequence of living. And to grasp for greater joys means the possibility of greater pain when we fail. This must be accepted, you as a human must come to terms with this or you will live your life hating the world. The people who try and escape these facts through ideas of salvation, either a heaven, a technological singularity or a utopian socialism where no one will be in pain are deluded. There can never be a world without pain because pain is not a property of the outside world, it is our own nature and we will never escape that. You are also absolutely wrong about happiness. What you call happiness has nothing to do with joy or pride or triumph, feelings that come from overcoming adversity in the face of pain. You are talking about equanimity, the feeling that comes from being truly uninvested in what happens in the world. A buddhist virtue, letting go of your own desires. This is a path you can take to try and deal with the possibility of pain but it is a disengagement with the world. To try and decouple your feelings from the world and its messiness. Alternatively one may seek engagement with the world, to embrace ones cares and seek to accomplish in the world even when failure and pain are inevitable. You're strawmanning Peterson a bit when you say he's for passive acceptance of the status quo. He's advocating engagement with the world.

absolute garbage.

what the fuck are you even responding to? how in any sense can you read my post and think i'm advocating for some kind of ascetic withdrawal ("You are talking about equanimity, the feeling that comes from being truly uninvested in what happens in the world")? I explicitly meant the EXACT opposite when i stated that "happiness is when you realize that the coordinates of the situation you're in don't allow for the actualization of your desire to happen, and as such the only option you have is to change these coordinates." what is this but Real "engagement with the world?"

I quite clearly equated happiness with desire, and desire, as we all know, can only be unfulfilled, otherwise it isn't desire but satisfaction. not only are you "completely wrong" about what happiness is, you have no idea what desire means (instead you've chosen to accept the boring old buddhist conception of desire as something to be avoided). to be human is to desire, this is inarguable.

interestingly, you claim to reject the fear of overcoming challenges, while also positing pain as something to be avoided. several times in your post you describe pain as some kind of feared possibility which can be circumvented by avoiding one's desire. this is cowardice at its purest. pursuing one's desires always has an implicit risk of failure, of pain. this is no problem.

Sounds like your friend might be right.