Who is Dr. Jordan B Peterson?

It is not Jordan Peterson,s “spiritual/theological” quest, but his “psychological study” that has brought him back into the dark underworld of his soul and now the implications of an “eternal/infinite” dimension that he won’t be able to manage with his limited intellect is beginning to frighten him.
“Traditional Christian language has embedded within it a non-egalitarian relationship – “Bend your knee”. [Paul VanderKlay]

“Jordan B Peterson is scrupulously trying to construct a natural theology of sorts from within a secular framework (… without bending his knee.). His thesis is that you will lose Western Civilization if you lose the presuppositions or foundations beneath it which are offered from the Bible as mythological text” [Paul VanderKlay]

“So we can say quite straightforwardly that there exists a transcendent totality, whose essential nature is unspeakable. Now the ancient Jews made an even more radical claim – one whose truth I would argue is possible to demonstrate using the same clear and truly self-evident rationale. These ancient tribal people posited that it was possible to establish a personal relationship with that totality, and that the attempt to do so was the highest of moral duties and virtues.” [Jordan Peterson]

“Jordan Peterson does not believe that Jesus Christ is the root of Christianity, he believes, as most intellectuals do, the opposite, that Christian belief is a phlosophical crutch formed during hard times – ” The central ideas of Christianity are rooted in Gnostic philosophy, which, in accordance with psychological laws, simply had to grow up at a time when the classical religions had become obsolete. It was founded on the perception of symbols thrown up by the unconscious individuation process which always sets in when the collective dominants of human life fall into decay. At such a time there is bound to be a considerable number of individuals who are possessed by archetypes of a numinous nature that force their way to the surface in order to form new dominants.” [Maps of Meaning]

“Roger Scruton and Jordan Peterson have captured the attention of the Christian imagination in a way few, if any, explicitly Christian writers, thinkers, or movements in recent years can claim to have done. Intellectually serious Christians who come across them cannot help but be fascinated by the way in which these public intellectuals have been able to reach down into our secular culture and extract an unmistakably Christian message, without putting off readers or listeners who do not have any concrete religious convictions to speak of, let alone any experience of institutional Christianity. Both have tapped into a growing sentiment in our otherwise disenchanted culture that Christian civilization in the West may be worth preserving after all, even at this late hour. … Peterson is repeatedly faced with the sometimes sincere—but oftentimes obstinate bordering on banal—complaint that he does not call himself a Christian, even as he attempts to vindicate the Christian story. And why won’t he, at the very least, say he believes in God? Peterson finds these questions disingenuous—he says he doesn’t “like” them, but he’s being polite—because they’re an attempt to box him in. What exactly would he be committing himself to, he wonders, by saying he believes in God and calling himself a Christian? “Even more worrying for the liberal consensus they defy, Sir Roger and Professor Peterson seem to imply that Christianity in particular might be the truest religion of them all, because it is a self-consciously philosophical religion that combines the written and spoken word with spiritual action. Finally, to the utter astonishment and outrage of their intolerant opposition, neither will concede that the truth of Christianity does anything to diminish the profundity and truth of non-Christian religions. In fact, the space Christianity offers to the “other” may be its greatest cultural legacy, one that should be of great interest to those who profess to champion modern pluralist values. Christianity’s imaginative dialogue with the non–Christian, they seem to suggest, is a natural outgrowth of its abiding spiritual confidence in the truth of its message, a confidence that our disenchanted culture believed it had successfully stamped out. Apologetics of the [Jordan Peterson/Roger Scruton] kind forget the origins of our faith: it is a knowledge rooted in love. We know in our hearts that the Christian religion is not just the greatest story ever told; we know this, but stand in need of a constant reminding that our myth is also true. We are not in the post-modern business of out-narration, because we do not have to be. Nobody who is telling the truth is a threat to us. This is the great genius of the Christian faith: the truth is on our side. Indeed, the truth is our side. It is our way of life” [An Open Letter to Christian Readers of Jordan Peterson & Roger Scruton by James Bryson]

Because Peterson has unlocked the Bible to millions of people, who are any of us to say that this is a bad thing? But is it a good thing? “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Perhaps some of those millions who are doing the hearing might open a Bible and discover faith. Absent Peterson, who was reaching them? Certainly not the laughingstocks that make up most of Sunday morning evangelical television. … Sure, some might get stuck in some bastardized theology or philosophy, but such as these were lost anyway – and it isn’t Peterson’s doing that thousands of theologians and preachers have failed at reaching these individuals. Peterson isn’t leading sheep astray – sheep such as these were already astray.[The Bionic Mosquito]Various quotes I have gathered over the last few years from listening to, about, and reading people who are comparing C S Lewis to Jordan B Peterson and asking the question – “Is Peterson a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a sheep in wolf’s clothing or just a charlatan with an oversized ego?”


Its just my opinion, but, to reduce Jordan Peterson (who I believe is a sheep in wolve’s clothing (see Mat:10:16)) to just “politics”, or just “religion”, or just “psychology and or philosophy” will ensure you miss the underlying theme linking all his messages.

“The sovereignty of the individual is sacred, and … that the fundamental linkage between the pathology of the state and the psychology of the individual is the individual’s propensity to self-deceive him or herself and adopt an in-authentic mode of being and action.” [Jordan Peterson]

or … “The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie,” [Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]

This message is critical for the individual in all the disciplines mentioned above – in all their personal “politics”, “religion”, “psychology and or philosophy” .

This is also a possible answer to C S Lewis’s question – “The Christian is called, not to individualism but to membership in the mystical Body. A consideration of the differences between the secular collective and the mystical Body is therefore the first step to understanding how Christianity without being individualistic can yet counteract collectivism.“[C S Lewis]

Someone critical of Peterson first quotes Carl Jung – “For, as long as Satan is not integrated, the world is not healed and man is not saved. But Satan represents evil, and how can evil be integrated? There is only one possibility: to assimilate it, that is to say, raise it to the level of consciousness. This is done by means of a very complicated symbolic process which is more or less identical with the psychological process of individuation. In alchemy this is called the conjunction of two principles.” [Carl Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections (as quoted in Jordanetics] – and then states clearly – “To follow Christ, one must reject evil—not integrate it.”

But, is this not just a limited perspective of what Jung said ? Is Jung not just telling us that – “Sin is an intellectual tug at your mind that has the destruction of your soul as its intention”. [Dallas Willard]  and that we need to take evil as seriously as we take this malevolence personally because – “Satan wants to destroy us. It is important that we understand  this. We must not fall back into St. Augustine’s now discarded  doctrine of the “privatio boni”, whereby evil was defined as the  absence of good. Satan’s personality cannot be characterised  simply by an absence of love in it’s personality. It is also true that pervading this personality is an active presence of hate“.[DEREK PRINCE]

The following has been taken from the Rev Paul VanderKlay video – Commentary on Jordan Peterson’s Biblical Series 2a

“Is God an idea that we generate or are we beings that God generates?”

Jordan Peterson’s definition of “The Logos” – “God is that collective unconscious that is “supra-natural”, beyond the conscious control product of the collective consciousness that transforms the material world into productive space. – Genesis 1 is not an account of how God made “the stuff”, it’s an account of  how that  “supra-natural consciousness”ordered “the stuff” into a functional Reality or a perfectly functioning cosmos through us and for us.”

“The Word (Christ, the Holy Spirit, God and the Bible) has relevance and has always had relevance, the individual must make his life relevant to the Word (the Logos). If I come into a worship service and find it irrelevant then I have to ask myself one question – “is it because God is irrelevant to me or because I am irrelevant to God? What is the reason for the irrelevance, is it because my life is not measuring up or is it that God doesn’t have a vital place in my life? [Ravi Zacharias]

The word “logos” is the root of “logic” and “dialogue“.

“Blessed [is] the man that trusts in the LORD, and whose hope is the LORD.”[Jeremiah 17:7] – it is not our faith that saves us, it is the faith of Jesus.

If I am relating to Jesus, face to face (this is what faith is) then I will know that I am a sinner. Knowing that I am a sinner and doing something about it are two dimensions to repentance – faith and obedience. The knowledge that I am a sinner is the gift, the obedience requires my full attention to hearing what Jesus says about how I can obey Him. If I can’t hear Him, I can’t obey Him. I can try to hear Him by … “The divine power of God has given us everything we need for life and godliness in Jesus and our experiences with Jesus, who called us by being our example of goodness, righteousness and glory. He has given us His precious and great promise so that through them we may escape from the corruption in the world (because of obsessive desires) and become partakers of God’s nature. For this reason you must go on making every effort to re-enforce your discipleship with Jesus (your faith) with:-

goodness – the righteousness of the Logos (love, grace, mercy, forgiveness, the faith OF Jesus Christ reaching out for me).

knowledge – the philosophy of the Logos (requires my full attention, focus and the act of bringing my gratitude, praise and obedience before my mind).

self-control – the psychology of the Logos (Holy Spirit empowered self-control, not my intellectual efforts in my own strength)

endurance – makrotheumia with the Logos (moment by moment reliance and dependence on the power of the Holy Spirit with His perseverance).

 godliness – theology of the Logos (quiet time of inactivity to contemplate and appreciate and apprehend exactly who and what God is).

and affection – Love of the Logos (grace and mercy of Jesus Christ).“ [2Peter 1:3-7]

“Those who are not genuinely convinced that the only real bargain in life is surrender of ‘self’ to Jesus, abandoning all that they love to Him and for Him, can not learn the other lessons Jesus has to teach, They can not proceed to spiritual transformation, not because Jesus wont let them, but simply because they can not” [Dallas Willard]

“Life is fundamentally suffering and malevolence… but …. the light that you discover is proportionate to the amount of darkness you are willing to forthrightly confront and that there’s no upper limit to that. The good that people are capable of is higher than the evile they are capable of.” [Jordan Peterson]

The “reality” of this God,  while the product of our supra-natural collective consciousness is :-

  • greater than any individual or any collective of individuals
  • is not and perhaps cannot be fully known by any individual or any collective of individuals
  • cannot be fully articulated by any individual or any collective of individuals
  • had better be respected and be treated as God and if we fail to do so we do so at our own peril
  • we can offer sacrifices to “it”
  • we had better worship “it”
  • we had better submit our behavior to “it”
  • if we don’t do this individually and collectively we do so at our own peril

This is a behavioral question as well as a belief question.

“The same story via Jung is that the sub-conscious sub-personalities, by watching the behavior of other beings for millions of years develop consciousness and through that consciousness change the chaos of the material layer into productive, ordered space in which those beings may inhabit and thrive.”[Jordan Peterson]


“If you respect and treat people like they’re the locale of divine speech that casts potential into habitable order they will reciprocate”

“Every time you learn something, you learn because something you did didn’t work. And that exposes you to the part of the world that you don’t understand. Every time you’re exposed to the part of the world you don’t understand, you have the possibility of rebuilding the structures that you use to interpret the world. That’s often why it is more important to notice that you’re wrong than to prove that you’re right. One of the things you’re supposed to learn in the university is precisely that. It might be useful to listen to people that annoy you on the off chance that they know something that, if they tell you, you can use instead of dying. Talking with people who agree with what you say is like walking around in a desert. You already know everything that they say! The reason you’re associating with them in that situation is so that they never say anything that challenges you because you’re afraid that, if you go outside of what you understand, that you won’t be able to tolerate the chaos. But it isn’t the case. People have an unbelievable capacity to face and overcome things they don’t understand. And not only that, that’s essentially what gives life its meaning. The Buddhists say: life is suffering. And you think: well, if that’s the case, why bother with it? And people do ask that question and ask it in ways that result in their own destruction and, worse, in the destruction of others. So, for example, people who become particularly cruel, particularly in a genocidal manner, are more than willing to dispensing with as many human beings as they can possibly train their sights on because they’re so disgusted by the nature of human limitation that they rather eradicate it. And lots of people become suicidal because they can’t bear the conditions of their own existence. And suffering is real and it’s inescapable. So, the question is: what do you do about it? You notice in your own life and you can do this by watching your own life. And I often ask my clients to do this. Say look, watch your life for a week and pretend you don’t know who you are because you don’t know who you are. At all! What you understand most about yourself are the arbitrary presuppositions that you use to hem yourself in. And you act as if those presuppositions are true so that the revelation of the full nature of your character won’t terrified you. People hide in their own boxes and it’s not surprising. But it’s not a good idea because life is too hard to hide in a box. You can’t manage it, if you do that. If you watch yourself for a week, you’ll see certain things, you’ll see some of the time that you’re resentful and annoyed, and those are times that you’re either taking advantage of yourself or you’re thinking improperly. Some of the time you’ll be bored, in which case you’re either undisciplined or you’re probably pursuing something you don’t want to pursue. And some of the time you’ll actually be engaged in life. And the times that you’re engaged in life, you won’t notice that you’re there. Right? The distinction between subject and object disappears when you’re engaged in something that you find meaningful. The purpose of life, as far as I can tell from studying mythology and from studying psychology for decades, is to find a motive of being that’s so meaningful that the fact that life is suffering is no longer relevant. Or even that it is maybe acceptable. And I would say as well that people know when they’re doing that. You know when you’re doing that in part because you’re no longer resentful. You think: Gee, I could do this forever. Right? There is a timelessness that’s associated with that state of being. From a mythological perspective, that’s equivalent to a brief habitation of the Kingdom of God . That’s the place where you are that’s so meaningful that enables you to bear the harsh preconditions of life without becoming resentful, bitter or cruel. And there’s nothing that you could pursue in your life that would be half as useful as that.”

“The known is explored territory, a place of stability and familiarity – is the “city of God,” as profanely realized. It finds metaphorical embodiment in myths and narratives describing the community, the kingdom, or the state. Such myths and narratives guide our ability to understand the particular, bounded motivational significance of the present, experienced in relation to some identifiable desired future, and allow us to construct and interpret appropriate patterns of action, from within the confines of that schema.”… “Behind every particular (that is, historical) adventurer, explorer, creator, revolutionary and peacemaker lurks the image of the “son of god,” who sets his impeccable character against tyranny and the unknown. The archetypic or ultimate example of the saviour is the world redeemer, the Messiah – world-creating-and redeeming hero, social revolutionary and great reconciliator. It is the sum total of the activity of the “Messiah,” accumulated over the course of time, that constitutes culture, the Great Father, order itself – explored territory, the domain of the known. In the “meta-stable” society, however, the Father, though healthy, is subordinate to the Son: all fixed values necessarily remain “subject” to the pattern of being represented by the hero. In the “City of God” – that is, the archetypal human kingdom – the Messiah eternally rules.” [JP – Maps of Meaning]

“I think the idea that the most godly thing you can do is to accept the reality of your crucifixion [taking up your cross] is true! I think that’s true! It’s never been presented better than that. I think that Western civilisation’s emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual [in the image of God] … is right. So to the degree that our culture – and what is right and useful about it – maintains itself and moves forward, it’s going to have to reunite itself to its symbolic foundation, with its underlying story. I don’t see another alternative. Do I think that will be a Christian revival, so to speak, a renaissance? Yeah I do.”

“It’s because the bloody intellectual Leftists have never apologized for their complicity in the catastrophe’s of the 20th century.The Germans apologized, “Sorry for the  Nazi’s”, but the Left wing intellectuals say, “Oh, that wasn’t real Marxism”. Ok!, so how many corpses have to pile up around you before you’re willing to question your beloved ideological presuppositions and face your resentment, your narcism and desire for destruction” [Jordan Peterson]

The Left are now beginning to experience the victim side of their own “political correctness”.

The gap between Peterson’s obvious intelligence and the Left’s scathing denunciation of him as an alt-right idiot is simply too large for many on the left to ignore. The Left’s attack on Peterson is so unrelenting, so superficial, and quite frequently so vicious, that many of us who work ad/or live in left-leaning social environments feel scared to speak up against it. We don’t want to alienate our friends, damage our professional reputations, or attract the attention of fire-breathing activists.

The problem here is not simply that this is unpleasant for people like me. More importantly, our silence further impoverishes everyday political discourse by eliminating more nuanced left-of-centre voices. This, in turn, reinforces the already powerful trend toward weaponized hashtag ideology instead of serious political thought.

Peterson is just one example of this larger trend.  Viewed as such, the situation he represents is extremely concerning, and even dangerous. We desperately need a revitalized Left  that’s capable of speaking to today’s pressing issues of socio-economic inequality, environmental devastation, and spiritual malaise in informed, intelligent, and inspiring ways. Instead, we’re inundated by shallow ideological crusades dedicated to demonizing thoughtful conservatives like Peterson, who actually have something important to offer – just not on the issues that properly concern the Left.

Given my life-long identification with the social democratic (or, in U.S. terms, left-liberal) side of the political spectrum, I’ve reflected quite a bit on why my response to Peterson seems so out of step with dominant left-of-center discourse. It may be that I’m actually not as alone as it seems. Although I can’t prove it, I suspect that there are many others who feel as I do but are keeping quiet, as they don’t want to risk the blowback that comes with countering the often frightening force of today’s ideological tides.”

[Carol Horton]

The “political correctness” itself, and the intellectual suicide of the author is in the  sentence – “like Peterson, who actually have something important to offer – just not on the issues that properly concern the Left”. Unless the Left do concern themselves with the important, intelligent, and inspiring issues that Peterson is raising, and purposefully make them issues of the Left, then the Left will sink further and further into the mendacious swamp of irrelevance. “The Roman god’s became ridiculous when the Roman emperor’s did. Political Correctness is the equivalent of Caligula’s horse” [unknown source]

The “rider” = the individual and the “elephant” = the group or the “ideological possession.” The movement of an individual from “rider” to “elephant” is an attempt to deflect or deceive. Peterson’s point was that you can hold individual’s responsible but you cannot hold groups responsible, simply because you can’t enforce the relationship between rights and responsibilities in groups without an elite group being introduced to do the enforcing. Terms like “white cultural hegemony” are used by individuals who want to avoid responsibility for their thoughts and actions by jumping across and into a group.

“I have been watching and listening to Dr Peterson’s posted lectures and videos for over a year now — they are addictive – because his profound depth of insight and articulate expression of the wisdom he has learned motivate and initiate personal introspection as well as an external search for “truth” in all the physical, intellectual and spiritual dimensions of living for anyone interested in examining their life and its meaning.

I have come to the conclusion that I am probably watching one of the most important and competently learned intellects of our time in his personal quest to understand and relate the physical, mental and spiritual dimensions of individual physiology in an effort to prevent Western Civilizations descent into the Marxist maelstrom he knows will be the inevitable result if he does not. ”[Tim Lott]

“In particular, much of my work over the last few years—the subject of my PhD research and also of my recently released book—has been concerned with biblical typology, with the ways in which biblical stories manifest deeper and meaningful patterns, patterns which give order to our lives in the present. Peterson’s interest in the psychological significance of Bible stories is addressing a similar issue from a different angle. He too recognizes that the meaning of the biblical narratives is deeper than their surfaces and that their patterns are worthy of close attention. Yet he attends to them in quite different ways from those in which I would usually do. This difference makes for stimulating interaction.

Peterson’s work raises many fundamentally religious questions. As I have argued, Peterson is seeking to articulate a post-nihilist and post-materialist view of reality that recovers existential meaning. We will fall short of appreciating his ability to speak with such power and passion into the contemporary situation if we do not grasp this. For Christians, we share a belief in a reality that sustains deep meaning. Yet we have often become lazy in interacting with atheists who lacked a strong belief in the meaningfulness of reality, so have failed to sharpen our account of this and to press it home well in our message. This is one area where I believe that we can fruitfully engage with.”

[Alastair Roberts]

“Dr. Peterson, over the last few years, has become the most articulate conservative intellectual on YouTube. I don’t mean merely that he has the largest audience, which he undoubtedly has. I mean that, intellectually speaking, he has a rapier mind. He is also as fearless as anybody I have ever seen in front of a camera. In the phrase I have loved for many years, he takes no prisoners.

What Dr. Peterson did to her will become a model in how to respond to a liberal who has not thought through his or her opinions, and who nonetheless goes on the offensive. This video has been seen all over the world. At present, there have been over 5 million viewers. This is not what Ms. Newman and her producer had expected. Most of the people viewing this video are her mortal ideological enemies. They are seeing what they have dreamed of, possibly for their whole adult lives: an articulate conservative verbally eviscerating a feminist in full public view.”

[Gary North]

“To me, who first approached Christianity from a delighted interest in, and reverence for, the best pagan imagination, who loved Balder before Christ, and Plato before Augustine, the anthropological argument against Christianity has never been formidable. On the contrary, I could not believe Christianity if I were forced to say that there were a thousand religions in the world of which nine hundred and ninety nine were pure nonsense and the thousandth (fortunately) true. My conversion, very largely, depended on recognizing Christianity as the completion, the actualization, the entelechy, of something that had never been wholly absent from the mind of man” [C S Lewis] and … “In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England. I did not then see what is now the most shining and obvious thing; the Divine humility which will accept a convert even on such terms. The Prodigal Son at least walked home on his own feet. But who can duly adore that Love which will open the high gates to a prodigal who is brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance of escape? “

[C S Lewis]

compare this to …

“Whether one believes these stories and events are the Word of God, infallible and literal history, or whether one believes these stories and events capture an oral tradition going back countless millennia…in either case, it was kind of stupid of me to believe that there weren’t some tremendously important meanings in these stories beyond the surface.”[Jordan B Peterson]

“You can tell, if your’re listening, whether the ideas you are hearing are merely being passed through a person, as if they are being memorized or if they are part of the dynamic core of the person. If they are part of the dynamic core of the person then they are almost always engaging and gripping.” [Jordan Peterson]

“Evil is the production of suffering for its own sake” [Jordan Peterson]

“First question the frame of reference before you question what is derived from it.” [Jordan Peterson]

“There is intense pleasure in momentary domination, that’s why people do it all the time, but it’s no formula for long term reciprocal relationships.” [JP]

“In a sense what we’re doing is, we’re participating in the process of ‘articulating each other’s spirits’ and I mean that most technically…”[JP]

“People who believe that there is no reality outside of individual interpretation …the only point of human characterization is power … discrimination on the basis of competence is “fair discrimination, as opposed to “unfair discrimination” … It takes hard work and focus to build your model of the reality of anything into a high resolution, detailed picture that’s why ideologies are so dangerous, they look like the complete picture but they are not… We like things to be simple but distinguishing between simple and too simple is no easy matter… The unthinking adherence to compassion is not a virtue.”[Jordan B Peterson]

“Life isn’t a game. Life is a set of games. The rule is – never sacrifice victory across “the set of games” for victory in the one game. The winner is the one who gets invited to participate in the most games in most people’s lives over the longest time.”[JP]

“The person who has the most authority is the one who has voluntarily accepted the most suffering which is part of being”. [JP]

“The Kingdom of God” is the state which would be created by default if everyone were devoted to their individual state of “being in Christ”. [Dr Jordan Peterson]

“If you can posit an ideal, why can’t you posit the ultimate ideal?  Well if you can, then instantly you’ve got a religious sensibility.  Why have we got a religious instinct?  Because the idea that it’s mere superstition – we can just dispense with that – that’s just wrong.  There is some reason why that religious instinct exists.”[Jordan B Peterson]

“The difference between legislating what “I cannot say” and what “I must say” is critical.” [Jordan B Peterson]

“When you are going through a book like the Bible and you come across a phrase that you don’t understand, that actually means you missed something.  It doesn’t mean that that’s not germane to the story…it means you’re stupid.”[Peterson]

“It doesn’t matter what you say you believe, what matters is how you act out what you believe. And if you really want to find out what you believe you don’t ask yourself what you believe, you watch yourself act and you deduce from that what you believe.”[JP]

We should also note, with regard to those who impugn his scientific credibility, that Peterson’s “h-index,” or citation count in peer-reviewed articles and papers, is through the roof, some 8000 to date. This metric, which measures both quality and ubiquity, establishes Peterson as a leader in his field.[David Solway]

“The sense of meaningful engagement is the deepest of cognitive instincts and “meaningful engagement” is a marker that you are where you should be and doing what you should be doing” [JP]

““Life isn’t a game. Life is a set of games. …There is intense pleasure in momentary domination, that’s why people do it all the time, but it’s no formula for long term reciprocal relationships.” [JP]

The rule is – never sacrifice victory across “the set of games” for victory in the one game. The winner is the one who gets invited to participate in the most games in most people’s lives.”[JP]

“The person who has the most authority is the one who has voluntarily accepted the most suffering which is part of being”. [JP]

“The Kingdom of God” is the state which would be created by default if everyone were devoted to their individual state of “being in Christ”. [Dr Jordan Peterson]

“When you are going through a book like the Bible and you come across a phrase that you don’t understand, that actually means you missed something. It doesn’t mean that that’s not germane to the story…it means you’re stupid.”[Peterson]

“It doesn’t matter what you say you believe, what matters is how you act out what you believe. And if you really want to find out what you believe you don’t ask yourself what you believe, you watch yourself act and you deduce from that what you believe.”[JP]

Jordan speaks from his intellect and experience, and we have no way of telling, except from the fruit of his work, if his mind has been touched by the power of God’s Holy Spirit to include the access that Christ’s crucifixion gave us to His spiritual dimension.
Many comments he makes support, or are supported by, scripture, but in interviews he always avoids ceding intellectual authority to the spiritual dimension by psychological or philosophical definitions or theories, so if it is not the Holy Spirit speaking through him he will eventually reach the end of his intellectual potential because that will be all he has to draw from.
For those who do not have Christ and the Holy spirit interpreting his wisdom he is well worth listening to simply because he points people at the existence of the spiritual dimension which he admits has deeper resources to draw on.[me]

“It may be that a clear sense of the self can only crystallize around something transcendental in which case, our prospects look poor, for we are rightly committed to the rational” [Robert Bolt] … sums up in one sentence what Nietsche said when he limited the definition of “TRUTH” to reason and rationality and in so doing assumed that Christianity, by elevating “TRUTH” to the highest virtue, created, in the search for “TRUTH”, the undermining of the axioms of Christianity itself. The fact that he saw the “truth” of the Bible as being limted to “wisdom helpful only for the afterlife, and not for life and living today”  limited his view of the scriptures to “eternal insurance”, as opposed to being a Kingdom that is “at hand” [Matthew 4:17]

Jordan Peterson, Pastor Paul VanderKlay and Bolt are all saying – You can think that a clear sense of the individual “self” can only crystalize around something non-transcendental but humanities prospects can then only end in Nihilism, simply because if there is no supra-natural objective view of individuality then the most popular view of subjective conformity must prevail. TRUTH=GOD=reason and rationality because 

I am also unsatisfied when JP uses biology or evolutionary psychology to float fuzzily on the infinite translations and meanings of the numinous to avoid his ignorance or to avoid his personal conclusions . But don’t we all ?, including pastors and theologians who at least have sufficient maturity to admit it. Mythology is often born of a mixture between naturalism and spirituality, unless you don’t believe in miracles and you have to believe in miracles to accept a virgin birth, see C S Lewis explaining that he was led to Christ by realizing that the virgin birth was a myth that had really happened in time and space.

I think you may have hastily interpreted JP incorrectly though, he is not a wolf in sheep’s clothing, I think he is a sheep in wolf’s clothing.

Are you ruling out the possibility that JP can be led to Christ by his biology or evolutionary psychology?

Question marks ????

I got Jordan Peterson’s Twelve Rules For Life for the same reason as the other 210,000 people: to make fun of the lobster thing. Or if not the lobster thing, then the neo-Marxism thing, or the transgender thing, or the thing where the neo-Marxist transgender lobsters want to steal your precious bodily fluids.

But, uh…I’m really embarrassed to say this. And I totally understand if you want to stop reading me after this, or revoke my book-reviewing license, or whatever. But guys, Twelve Rules For Life is actually good.

“I think Nietzsche was right – you can’t just take God out of the narrative and pretend the whole moral metastructure still holds.” [JP]

It doesn’t. JP himself somehow manages to say Nietzsche was right, lament the collapse, then proceed to try to salvage the situation with a metaphorical fluff God.

The non-point-missing description of Jordan Peterson is that he’s a prophet.

Cult leaders tell you something new, like “there’s a UFO hidden inside that comet”. Self-help gurus do the same: “All you need to do is get the right amount of medium-chain-triglycerides in your diet”. Ideologues tell you something controversial, like “we should rearrange society”. But prophets are neither new nor controversial. To a first approximation, they only ever say three things:

First, good and evil are definitely real. You know they’re real. You can talk in philosophy class about how subtle and complicated they are, but this is bullshit and you know it. Good and evil are the realest and most obvious things you will ever see, and you recognize them on sight.

Second, you are kind of crap. You know what good is, but you don’t do it. You know what evil is, but you do it anyway. You avoid the straight and narrow path in favor of the easy and comfortable one. You make excuses for yourself and you blame your problems on other people. You can say otherwise, and maybe other people will believe you, but you and I both know you’re lying.

Third, it’s not too late to change. You say you’re too far gone, but that’s another lie you tell yourself. If you repented, you would be forgiven. If you take one step towards God, He will take twenty toward you. Though your sins be like scarlet, they shall be white as snow.

This is the General Prophetic Method. It’s easy, it’s old as dirt, and it works.

[Scott Alexander]

… and then …

Yet it was always clear that Lachman shared the mainstream ‘anything but Christianity’ kind of reflexive leftist/ progressive/ pro-sexual revolution perspective… which is all-but universal among those active in the perennialist, spiritual, esoteric, neo-pagan, self-help, personal development world.

Here and now, this agnostic stance of suspended judgement is non-viable: things have come to a point; because of the pervasive domination of New Left/ Political Correctness in all major social institutions everyone is incrementally being brought to a fork in the path, a decision yes or no.

I see this all around me. We live in a world of spiritual warfare. It cannot be hidden from, choice cannot be evaded. We cannot ‘keep our heads down’ because everyone is located and they must stand-up and raise their hands (and voices) to endorse and promote the current, evolving Leftist totalitarian narrative in all its respects – or else… [Bruce Charlton]

This is why I pay very little attention to atheists, agnostics, and pagans who believe they are opposed to globalism. Their belief is sincere, but they simply don’t understand the true nature of the war that presently engulfs Man. Despite their intentions, I expect that many, not most of them, will ultimately gravitate to the other side when push comes to shove.

Because, at the end of the day, you must either bend the knee to Jesus Christ or to the Prince of this World. You will be forced to choose a side and there will be a price. Standing proudly on your own is an illusion and it was never an option.

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’


One is always well-served by paying attention to Mr. Charlton’s observations. He correctly saw through Jordan Peterson as well.

It is all very well for me to call Jordan Peterson an antichrist, and to warn people off taking seriously someone who is a merely a psychotherapist, left-libertarian, atheist… but the rejoinder is that ‘who else’ is there in the modern world getting mainstream coverage that is talking as much common sense?

And the answer is: nobody. Nobody else who has comparable fame and impact is any better than Jordan Peterson  – and yet Jordan Peterson is qualitatively inadequate for the needs of this time: he is a waste of time, a blind alley, a red herring; thus, in our state-of-emergency – he does more harm than good…

For people to regard JP as a significant thinker is evidence that they have no idea of the severity of the situation here and now.  They have no idea of the pervasiveness and depth of corruption in a society that officially advocates and enforces moral and aesthetic inversion; which punishes truth and systematically generates an interlocking structure of lies. We are in a very bad way indeed – advanced en route to self-chosen damnation on a mass scale. [Bruce Charlton]

Seven Answers by Vox Day to Jordan Peterson’s seven questions on the Darkstream.


1. What if it was nothing but our self-deceit, our cowardice, hatred and fear, that pollutes our experience and turns the world into hell?

Then the problem could be solved by sweet reason and a dedication to facing the truth about ourselves. But it isn’t so it can’t. And it isn’t our self-deceit, cowardice, hatred, and fear, but our greed, our pride, our lusts, and our will to power. Beyond that is the problem of supernatural evil, which is totally unaffected by our internal emotions. Moreover, this concept of evil contradicts Peterson’s own stated belief that it is group identification that lies at the bottom of the human motivation for evil

2. This is a hypothesis, at least—as good as any other, admirable and capable of generating hope. Why can’t we make the experiment, and find out if it is true? 

Because it will turn out like every other utopian experiment; in large quantities of bloodshed. Especially since Peterson is determined to try the experiment on a global level.

3. Does survival itself depend upon a solution to the problem of war?

No. Because war is not the problem as far as human survival is concerned. Neither is religion. Science, and more importantly, technology, are what pose a potential danger to the species. That being said, inasmuch as this is a problem of survival, the problem is likely to cure itself, as the infrastructure required to maintain this level of destructive technology is more fragile than either the Earth or the species.

4. Is Tammy Peterson’s dream that it was five minutes to midnight back in 2016 prophetic or significant in any way?

No. It was a bad dream and nothing more. Her dream is considerably less significant than Jordan Peterson’s dreams about dog-headed aliens butchering his beautiful cousin and offering the meat to him.

5. Is history itself a unitary phenomenon?

No. History is neither a force nor an inevitability. It is merely a very incomplete record of the past. Peterson is no more correct in his bizarre take on history than Marx or Fukuyama were.

6. Is Western culture the only one to possess a history based on objective events?

No. There are ancient Egyptian records of the height of the annual Nile flooding dating back to 3050 BC. The formal rules of sumo date back to 726 BC. The tax records of the Qin Dynasty date back to 221 BC.

7. I have discovered something that no one else has any idea about?

No, you’re just a very frightened and mentally disturbed individual who was literally driven crazy due to your fear of death.

Jordan Peterson’s grand solution to war is the elimination of competing group identities. One world, one race, one identity. Evil will be vanquished and paradise on Earth will result. – This is Globalism or Collectivism.

Peterson might have been a one-trick pony, but the thing is, he was on to THE trick. He bridged the gap in understanding between the theists/deists and the naturalists (NOT materialists/physicalists). He made religion understandable to the atheist/agnostic crowd, and gave religious people (Christians specifically) renewed confidence that they were on to something real, even if they could not always explicitly articulate it to others outside their faith. If you are going to be a one-trick pony, that’s the way to do it, IMO.[Karl Grunner]