The Order of Chaos: An Antidote to Meaning
Introduction
A Word About Jordan Peterson
I assume that most of you have heard of Jordan Peterson? He’s hard to miss these days—a really popular guy. His new book, ‘12 Rules For Life: An Antidote to Chaos’ is a smash hit that supplanted Michael Wolff’s Trump expose ‘Fire and Fury’ from the top of the bestseller lists. He’s recently done several high-profile interviews, including one where he verbally annihilated Cathy Newman of Channel 4 News in a devastating clip that garnered millions of views on YouTube.
I’ve only recently started to turn my eyes on Peterson. I have been aware of him for a while, and the small cult growing around him, but it never seemed to warrant my full attention. Recently, however, I took a plunge. I bought my very own copy of Peterson’s book, ’12 Rules For Life: An Antidote to Chaos.’ Let’s talk about it.
I’ve made no secret of the fact that I don’t think much of Peterson. And in response to that, I was told by several people that I dismiss people like Jordan Peterson too quickly because of his ties to religion. For those unfamiliar with Peterson’s beliefs, he draws a lot of his morality from the Bible, and sees it as the founding text of Western Civilization. His belief in a literal God is doubtful, but he holds a metaphorical God in high regard, much as a LaVeyian Satanist holds the metaphorical Satan in high regard.
Peterson’s affinity for Christianity is only one facet of my profound disagreements with the man. I’d go so far as to say that if Peterson never mentioned God or the bible once in his book, the rest of what he wrote would still find plenty of opportunities to rub me the wrong way. If you can forgive me a dirty simile, his thoughts are as sloppy as a hooker’s pussy at the end of her shift.
Let me be clear on something: Peterson is a very intelligent man. There’s no denying that. He’s got a good grasp of evolutionary psychology. And a good grasp of psychology in general. No one can deny that he’s a fast-talker and a fast-thinker. No one can deny that he’s well-read, and that his academic achievements are every bit as impressive as his newfound celebrity status as a public intellectual.
Let me go back to the day I bought his book. I was at an airport in Ohio, heading back to Louisiana after a long and frustrating business negotiation. I have never been blessed enough to be able to sleep on an airplane, so I was looking on Audible for an audiobook to listen to on the flight home. And I saw Jordan Peterson’s book there, read by Peterson himself.
I thought to myself, “What the hell! Let’s see what all this fuss is about. Let’s see what’s got so many so impressed and enamored!”
Honestly, up until that point, I’d never really given the guy a fair shake. I’d dismissed him on a very superficial basis. So, I decided in that moment to recognize and let go of my bias. I went into his book with an open mind. Part of me was hoping that the Peterson sycophants were right. Part of me was hungry for another Hitchens, for another forceful and eloquent intellectual who could demolish the bullshit of the day with a wrecking ball of aggressively-dispensed insight. And indeed, that’s how Peterson has been marketed to us. That’s how he’s marketed himself.
The plane boarded, and I took my seat and began listening. I had 6 hours of travel ahead of me, including a layover in Atlanta, and I had absolutely nothing better to do: so I listened.
And as I listened, I felt an increasing sense of dread. Could the man I was listening to really be a hero to millions of disenfranchised people? Was this man really who some were championing as the new voice of reason in a confusing and bitterly embattled world?
Something strange began to happen. A transfiguration. Or maybe a crystallization. The more Peterson spoke, the more I started to see myself more clearly through the lens of my revulsion with his philosophy. It was as if everything I believed in had been turned inside out and written into a book. And I thought to myself, “I must attack this book. I must destroy this man.” It became an imperative in my mind. A need. Raw and ugly.
Only a few days after my flight, I wrote a video script attempting to do just that. MUST. DESTROY. PETERSON. That was the Mantra in my head as I wrote, but when I looked at the script a few days later with new eyes, I recognized that it was not nearly as strong as I wanted it to be, and I didn’t truly have any idea how to fix it or even a clue within my soul as to what exactly was wrong with it. So I set it aside and decided to contemplate it for a while. Sometimes an idea needs time to brew. Striking while the iron is hot is not always the wisest course of action. Sometimes it’s best to let passions cool and view things anew through colder eyes.
Weirdly enough, it was a pro-Peterson meme that I stumbled upon one day on Instagram that helped me realize the problem with the script that I had written.
This is an actual Peterson quote from a message he posted on his website a little over a year ago, in a post entitled “My New Year’s Letter to the World.” And it’s this quote, pulled by the terrible meme I showed you a moment ago, that really got me thinking about Peterson himself in a new light. He warns us that in the vacuum created by nihilism, people will gravitate towards a charismatic authoritarian who will show them the way. And I think that in this instance, Peterson was right. What he failed to realize, however—or at least failed to divulge—is that he is currently benefitting from exactly this fact.
Over the past year or so, I’ve seen many people who or were part of the New Atheist movement gravitate towards Peterson and his message. Peterson’s message, by the way, amounts to little more than a delusion of grandeuer. Peterson’s book stands before the world and proclaims: Hey, you nihilistic loser, the wisdom contained in this book can bring order to chaos! I, Jordan “The Great One” Peterson can help you cure that nasty sense of directionless malaise that’s got you down! You see, it all stems from the nihilism that New Atheism and Postmodernism has left in its wake.
Peterson has a list of 12 rules that you should follow to bring about paradise on earth by defeating nihilism and postmodernism. In other words, Peterson is a “leader, possessed by the spirit of totalitarian certainty, who promises above all, to restore Order.” He is the very thing he warns us of, but he masquerades as the opposite. He tells you: “I’m not the authoritarian who wants to rigidly control you, I’m just a guy with a book of rules that you should obey.” And you’re supposed to nod your head and pretend you see a difference.
In the past, I have primarily taken on two groups of people—the religious (both zealots and moderates) and the so-called social justice warriors (SJWs). The former group was basically dead when I got there, hanging on by a fraying thread of tradition, waning in influence, on their last legs. The latter group was so patently ridiculous that arguing against their positions felt like child’s play—more of an amusing distraction than a serious intellectual exercise. For both of these foes, I primarily employed the tactics of reductionist deconstruction and crude mockery. And those tools were more than adequate for the tasks at hand.
But Peterson and his acolytes of order are not so easily destroyed by those tools. His philosophy is dense and deceptively subtle. Direct deconstruction of Peterson’s philosophy would be a massive undertaking that would ultimately not be effective for the following reason: people have not come to Peterson because he makes sense—he doesn’t. They have come to Peterson because he is offering them something that Nihilism inherently cannot offer: purpose, a prepackaged, no-thoughts-required reason for being. And as the great James Randi once said, “Those who believe without reason, cannot be convinced by reason.”
Mockery, too, would be an insufficient tool to defeat Peterson and his ilk. He can certainly be mocked, and I’ve seen it done effectively. For instance, AIU* made a frankly hilarious video about Peterson’s inability to answer a very simple question regarding his belief or lack of belief in God. Peterson flatly refuses to answer the question directly, but instead engages in Bill Clinton level subterfuge, asking for basic words and concepts to be defined for him before he can give the answer. But AIU’s video, hilarious though it was, did not garner a war reception. Mockery of the religious and the SJWs was easy and effective. And most importantly to YouTubers like me, it was popular.
Religion is a soft target for mockery because it’s archaic and even the people who believe it don’t really believe it. It’s a vestigial meme of the past that’s too stupid to know it’s dead; just a tired, anachronistic remnant holding on by its fingernails, due only to an ever shrinking sense of obligation to traditional values that exists within certain people.
Mockery was always effective against SJWs, because they exist to be mocked. Their stupidity at this point is legendary, and despite the best efforts of nearly every form of mainstream media to push an SJW agenda, the ideas championed by social justice warriors have, by and large, not caught on with the general populace.
Peterson’s adherents are different than religious folks and SJWS. They’re not stodgily clinging to his ideas out of a sense of dying obligation, as religious devotees are. Nor are they just completely buffoonish idiots, like SJWs are. Peterson’s adherents are people who feel as if they are hopelessly adrift in a sea of existential nihilism, who felt that life had no purpose until they were passionately moved by Peterson and his ideas.
Religious people believe out of fear and obligation. SJWs believe whatever emotionally caters to their endless sense of entitlement. Peterson’s acolytes believe in his message for reasons that are far more pure: they possess a genuine passion and desire to save not only themselves, but the world. Save it from what, you might ask? From chaos, of course—the chaos of nihilism, postmodernism, atheism, skepticism, empiricism, materialism, or whatever word or words you want to use to encompass your negative feelings about the detached jadedness of our times.
And so my usual wheelhouse of deconstruction and mockery will have to take a backseat on this journey. Jordan Peterson is forcing me to do something I’ve long toyed with the idea of, but never actually attempted.
For my entire career, I have shared with you many of my thoughts, but rarely have I let you into my thought process. I have conducted myself by a very particular philosophy, but it is a philosophy that I have never elucidated directly. And that must now change.
Peterson has laid out an architecture for how you should be. He has offered you a lens through which to view your reality. He has given you a philosophy, not only in the academic sense, but in the colloquial sense as well. And so anyone who truly wants to defeat Peterson must begin by doing as he has done, by laying all of their cards on the table. He has given people a way of seeing the world, and it is not sufficient to simply say to them, “That way of seeing the world is wrong.” You must give them a different way to see it. And that is exactly what I will henceforth be endeavoring to do, in however many videos it takes.
This video represents the introduction of an audiobook that I will be releasing bit by bit to YouTube and other platforms as time allows. The title of this book, which I will eventually release in paperback form as well, is “The Order of Chaos: An Antidote To Meaning.”
And so, I welcome you all to my mind. I will give you every tool in my intellectual toolbox. I will give you every lens I have through which to look at this world and its happenings. And maybe when all is said and done, you will find no worth in any of it, and you will be as eager to criticize me as I was to criticize Peterson.
I cannot promise you enlightenment, because I don’t have it. I cannot promise you purpose, for the same reason.
All I can offer you is my honest assessment of life, and how I choose to conduct myself as a result of this assessment. I will not, as Peterson does, be prescriptive and issue authoritarian edicts. The contents of this book you will have to take or leave at your own discretion. Nothing contained herein should be perceived as a rule for living. Think of them instead as tools for being—tools that you can pick up and use, or discard with prejudice.
It’s worth noting that although Peterson galvanized my desire to write this book, it’s primary purpose is not to subvert him. It is my hope that by showing you the inner workings of my mind and giving you insight into my value system, you will gain better insight not only into my videos, but into your own lives.
It is my wish to show to all of you the profound beauty of nihilism, the freedom of it, the sheer joy of not being forever tethered to someone else’s idea of a higher purpose or to a manufactured grander meaning to life. This book is meant as an exaltation of freedom, and a love letter to meaninglessness, to hopelessness, to life without a rigidly-defined sense of purpose. I hope very much that it will bring you contentment, or at the very least stimulate you in some capacity.
Shall we begin?
► Listen on DSound
► Listen from source (IPFS)
I think you are way too harsh with your use of the word "authoritarian". The dude isn't forcing you to do anything, nor is he suggesting that the government should mandate you to do so. He simply has a list of things that he believes will make you a better person if you choose to put those things into practice. Again, it's your choice to so or not.
Looking forward to the book!
I'm glad your back Tj. This place got boring without your neckbeardery.
Interesting, so very interesting.
I don't always agree with you TJ, but perhaps you're onto something here.
On a sidenote.
This is actually a development I was hoping for from you, TJ.
After you part your ways with Ben and DPP, I was kind of excited what artistic direction you want to go.
DFF was a breath of fresh air at first. But then you start doing top lists.
And don't get me wrong. We all enjoy a top list once every now and then.
But then there was another top list. And they were redundant, atleast in my opinion.
I was afraid you will just move into doing some horse shit content.
Now well, well, well. A book, or probably a very long essey. And on a very interesting topic.
While it is quite ironic that you left DPP because you didn't want to just react to stuff and react to reaction to your reaction. Now, you're writing a reaction the book. But at the very least you're not relying on anyone else.
I applaud you.
I definitely want to see you keep writing about Peterson - and making videos about him too. I feel like you have made some progress towards figuring out what exactly is wrong with him, but you're not quite there yet in terms of being able to express it clearly. Basically as you put it "when I looked at the script a few days later with new eyes, I recognized that it was not nearly as strong as I wanted it to be, and I didn’t truly have any idea how to fix it or even a clue within my soul as to what exactly was wrong with it."
I'm a step or two behind you on this - I started off really liking him from the Newman interview, then started questioning a little bit because of some of his views on transgender people, then started questioning a bit more because of his views on religion, and now I'm at a point where I feel like he is a net positive, but I also don't want to be seen as being "on his side" per say.
I'm planning to write something about him on steemit when I have a chance to think it all over more, but I definitely think you are doing something important by criticising him. You talked about how you felt that religion was dead when you started attacking it, but I disagree completely. In fact, I think it still needs to be fought and that it would be great for you to revisit some of that stuff sometimes. And I think you did more work against SJWism than you let on too. But this, this would really be a place where you help set off a movement. I feel like you are still figuring it out a bit, but you are further along than a lot of people like me who are really just beginning to think about criticisms of Peterson. Keep it up.
"some of his views on transgender people" Do you mean transgender or transsexual? The latter tend to really dislike the former so... The latter being marked by disphoria, the former being an authoritarian fashion trend people chose to follow.
Transgender people also, like all progressives, tend to agree with Hitler on the most fundamental level, that is to say, privileged people are bad and the opressed cant be the opressor. I fear the jews and asians have a rough future with progressives and the alt-right agreeing on them as targets...
Well, its fair to say that christianity echos some of the same sentiments as the modern west. And the east. And judaism. And islam. And feminism.
Or am i the only one who noticed that while for instance females of a rival tribe had the choice to die or marry a hebrew (unless theyve had a man in them before - a man who had a man in him was killed even if he was a hebrew unconditionaly, mind you) while men didnt have that choice and that christianity is founded on a hebrew girl telling her fiance "i didnt cheat, GOD RAPED ME!" and people listened and believed?
I may actually have to buy something tangible produced by Mr. TJ Kirk.
Looking forward to the rest of it!
Very excited about the book, i'm sure it'll be great.
Out of curiosity, what are you going to call your own cult TJ? :)
Where's the rv trip lol jk good luck with your new book btw can we get a audiobook version of douchebag bible
Ahh classic DP memes. How I miss thee.
Also, do you think you might ever do a similar write-up like this regarding Sargon of Akkad? He is another one who has really fallen from grace in my eyes (ok, maybe he was never quite at "grace" for me, but at least he fell from being "pretty good").
I don't know if that would seem too much like just "Drama", but I think there is an interesting divide growing being his center to center-right views and most (American) Liberals.
By american liberals, do you mean what americans call conservative? (and liberalism defiantly is a conservative value in the west unless of course you want feudalism and in the case of the US be under the british crown).
I have no idea on what TJ would possibly disagree with Sargon. I mean he might but im not aware of anything TJ stated which goes against anything Sargon stated.
You do not understand that american conservative were for the British crown as they have always been traditionalist.
Uhm, yes, they have been traditionalist becouse thats what conservative means. What traditionalist means of course differs from time and place, chinese conservatives for instance are communists.
What I mean with American Liberals is that American Liberalism is a bit different than European Liberalism. So Sargon calls himself Liberal, but I believe he means it in the European sense of the word "liberal".
My tl;dr version of the difference is that American Liberalism is center to center-left, while European liberalism tends to be center to center-right.
As for what Sargon and TJ disagree on, I'd say that their views on Peterson differ for sure, and Sargon has had some controversy recently where he seems to have drifted right in some regards. He has also stated that being a literal cuck is a character flaw (as opposed to just a fetish), and seems to have a very traditional view of masculinity that I don't think TJ has. Then there was the time recently that Sargon called people "nigger" on a stream like 10 times...
I think when you say liberals you mean progressives - typical democrats. Which are neither liberal nor left but far right. They dont care about civil rights, freedom of speech, free markets and so on. You know, liberalism.
Now, i think its obvious that they are not liberal in any sense of the term. Far right? Yes, their redistribution is a far-right process. Wealth redistribution is not inherantly left. It can be if it benefits the poor, its not if it is done along arbitrary lines about intrinsic charackteristics such as race, sex and so on instead of actual need and ability.
And i would argue american liberals - aka republicans and libertarians - are further to the right than european liberals at the very least.
As for what liberal means in europe, well, some so called liberal parties are more to the right, they arent usualy seen as actualy liberal. They would be libertarian, but thats not a term commonly used here. Liberals tend to be left in europe, as is sargon. He mightve shifted a bit to the right, in one political compass a while ago he agreed to "From everyone according to his ability, to everyone according to his need" - in a later one he rejected it, i dont think he actualy does to be honest, just today he had a stream in which he defends social safety nets - now, id actualy argue against social safety nets. Not becouse people shouldnt be able to live, no, becouse i would argue for an unconditional base income for everyone. One you can live from. Not with to many luxeries of course.
There was something recently, it wasnt about him being right. Yes, they called him alt-right... Yes, sargon. sure.... what they hate about him are two things: a) that he is a liberal and b) that he doesnt agree with the alt-right. Which also means he doesnt agree with them. Their believes are the same, just the priorities differ.
You can look at groups such as women, miniorities and the like - OR you could be a liberal and look at individual people.
I honestly fear for asians and jews as both the alt-right and the progressives can agree on them as targets. They are privileged and outearn us. The same old story, the justification back in the 30s/40s, during the time of segregation and so on.
Oh and, the average IQ is different for different races. Which is also a problem for you if you are worried about the wage gap. Becouse that means you look at people as groups, not individuals.
Whereas a liberal can just not care about that as a low average IQ doesnt mean every individual has to be low. Soooo you can still take the doctors and the like without bringing on the alt-rights horror story.
As for peterson, i think, yes, they will disagree. Though not about the points you criticised about him. Im sure on "petersons views on transgender people" - which by the way is something between neutral and... not positive but he wants to help them - they wont disagree a lot.
I look forward to seeing you argue for the value of nihilism I hope you and Peterson can at some point debate each other in some form
This was very interesting TJ! I can't wait to hear more from your book!
I look forward to more of this book. I'd also like to hear more of your in depth thoughts on Peterson. There is good value in some of his ideas, but also a lot of pretentious nonsense, especially when he mixes in religion.
Great video! I'm looking forward to the book, excited; really.
I missed out on your older book, I'm excited to get a fresh original copy of a new one!
I'm really interested in this new series you are doing. I think your content has been a bit low-brow lately. I'm not against it but sometimes it gets a bit stale listening to you make fun of SJWs.
I, for one, would welcome your efforts and would be interested to partake in what you produce out of this.
It is important to get these big ideas out in the open, in as a coherent a way as possible, so that we may let them gestate; so that we may really examine and evaluate them. We need more of that in the world in general if we are to progress in any reasonable manner. We do need more of that and less of all this bullshit where people attempt to shut down thought before it takes place.
This to me seems like a more honest approach than what sounded like it would've been a hapless directive to simply set out to 'destroy Peterson'.
I hope you can achieve what you want in your audio book. I look forward to listening to it.
Some thoughts:
Whenever religious people find a smart person, or a person who likes to use fancy words, or a person that speaks quickly using run-on sentences. That also happens believes in god. They buy all of is or her shit, because they need big brother to soothe their doubts.
Postmodernism is like quantum physics it is an inconvenient truth.
I miss Hitchens.