The famous Canadian psychologist Jordan B. Peterson gave a speech in Amsterdam, attended by thousands of visitors. He received an overwhelming applause when he spoke out against ‘woke’ and characterised the World Economic Forum as a technocratic death cult. He called out the moral hypocrisy and arrogance that hide behind the ‘white guilt’ in the slavery and reparations discourse. He then encouraged listeners to take an active role as informed, locally connected citizens.
Still, I think he was wrong. Here is why.
By Sid Lukkassen
The presentation started with his wife: she described her fight against cancer and how it morally transformed her. It is a relevant observation, as this positions the married couple as characters in a gripping story that Peterson’s followers can identify with. We move from exchanging academic ideas to following two heroes on their journey.
This indicates that Peterson is poised to move beyond academia and counselling sessions for good and to build his career further as his popularity with the general public grows.
This shift, in turn, cannot be understood separately from the increasing totalitarian nature of the regimes in the West and their left-leaning ideology. I describe this shift because it should evoke a question in the reader at large: “But if I want to stand against woke – against cancel culture, against the World Economic Forum, and I do not possess a mass following, then how will I ever sustain myself financially in a world where pretty much all money making is now directly or indirectly tied to the hegemony of the virtue signalers?”
It is an important question. Because it reveals that resisting the woke-technocracy and resisting the hegemony of the virtue signalersis not a question of being a diligent, responsible citizen, but of being conscientious on an individual level, as Peterson presents the situation. His reaction to this corrupt and increasingly despotic world is, in its core, evangelical. An ethic of individual elevation through inner confrontation, atonement and redemption.
But what we are dealing with here is not a quest for individual liberation. What we are dealing with is a question of collective political power. A power currently bolstered by the unholy alliance between Wall Street and Silicon Valley, used by the left-leaning elites against the base and patriotic Western citizens who crave self-determination and self-governance.
What we have to do is create space for socio-economic development outside the hegemony of virtue signalers. From this space, we can then constitute political power.
But Peterson does not address this. He espouses an ethic of personal betterment, which will amount to nothing as long as the current regime remains intact and as long as this socio-economic development is not put at the centre of the countervailing power we are developing. We have to take back control of the steering wheel. As is, this vessel we call Western civilisation is in full-force collision with an iceberg.
Simply put, it is not a dilemma that can be solved on an individual level, and any story that suggests otherwise is false hope and misdirection. This is not to say that no good things can be drawn from Peterson’s speech or that it isn’t well-intended. It just becomes irrelevant if one looks at the big picture. Want to be a responsible dad? Sure.
But what is the point of such a lofty aspiration, given that one has to live with their parents well into their forties because finding housing is impossible due to nitrogen policies and an overflow of immigrants?
If one cannot save money due to inflation and taxation, and loses all hope of ever becoming a property owner? If one cannot take the risk of settling with a woman, because the government incentivises divorce and forces men to pay for the fallout?
These are fundamental questions of ‘how to organise a civilisation’. To be acted on, they require collectivised political power – they cannot be answered with an ethic of individual elevation. Because in the end, the individual will just be crushed, unless you are somehow one of the few lucky ones.
And all of this, thus far, is just a brief outline of why his ideas will not work, even if they are inspiring and encouraging on an individual level. Maybe Peterson’s ethic can help rebuild civilisation from the ashes, once the Titanic that is Western culture has actually sunk. But even this I doubt, as the current level of our interaction with technology changes how humans relate to knowledge and information in such a drastic and fundamental way that it essentially changes what humans are.
All of this is neither addressed nor answered by his evangelical proselytising.
This I was told literally by my ex-girlfriend: “Sid, we cannot marry, because if we do, you are made financially responsible for the children from my previous relationship. And you will have to pay to support them even if we divorce.” Of course, one can pretend that the government and the laws surrounding our union do not exist.
Peterson might say that if you are truly a person of responsibility and integrity, you should follow your heart and that considerations of money and legal responsibility should never even enter into it. How very noble. Still, these ‘noble ’ yet naïve men are the ones who get financially entangled by the entanglements of their previous relationships.
Why do I insert this personal story? Because I want to invite the reader to the disgust and estrangement that my generation often experiences.
Peterson announced his new book, " We Who Wrestle with God." The book will be about the biblical story of Job, which Peterson analysed in spectacular detail. Job was a hard-working and wealthy man, a true believer with a good heart.
One day, God and Satan discussed whether Job would remain truly faithful if all his good things were taken away. “God found this challenge interesting, Peterson said, and so Job was tested. A raging storm destroyed his house and property, killed his servants and his children. Then the disease killed his livestock, and Job himself got afflicted by terrible illnesses that disfigured him.
After all this, Job was mocked by his friends who, according to Peterson, told him that the nature of the universe is fundamentally harmonious and orderly. And that if bad things happen to Job, this must somehow prove that Job is morally corrupt and thus deserves it.
Job’s impulse to question that reasoning was, in turn, interpreted as Job rejecting the good nature of the cosmos, as superimposing his own judgment over it; a self-important and overconfident attitude, which thus warranted all the misery that came over him, in the first place.
This point was really laid down quite excellently by Peterson, who then moved on to an example taken from The Brothers Karamazov (by the Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky), of a four-year-old girl who was horribly mistreated by her parents and froze to death. The cosmos apparently condones this. Can we now truly believe that creation – and by extension: God – is good?
Peterson then launched a tirade against atheism that permeated the rest of his speech. He started this rant by saying that a natural scientist cannot look beyond the Big Bang, as beyond that point, the laws of physics break down. He said that one might as well speak about a ‘miracle’ to explain the start of our universe, in the theological sense, because the logic used would amount to the same.
This is sophistry, as this concerns two different approaches to existence. In natural philosophy, one still seeks causal patterns and cause-and-effect relationships, according to the scientific method, even if the answers are unsatisfying and inconclusive. Theology abandons this search and falls back upon presuming a Cosmic Creator to which one submits in a religious act of will.
Such sophistry shocks us into pausing and turning around – maybe applying some psychology to the great psychologist himself. Could it be that Peterson bashes atheism because his own wife is sick, which makes him angry at this mortal existence? It is possible that this suffering leads to an internal conflict that he represses by forcing himself to believe in God with even more zeal and vigour. Hence, bringing in the Job mythology – but does it actually make sense?
Peterson returns to the essence of Job’s story: one has done everything right, and still gets punished. Putting it in harsher, more precise terms: God permits Satan to rape you. In Job’s case, it is not despite him having a good heart but because he has a good heart. What does this teach us about the nature of existence?
Two choices remain, Peterson infers from this biblical story. When you truly suffer, either you agree that the cosmos is inherently good. Then, your suffering must thus be justified – this means you damn yourself.
Alternatively, you conclude that existence is not good at all, but somewhat chaotic and absurd or even malignant. Then, instead of morally dooming yourself, you doom existence, which also means dooming yourself because you are part of existence. Anyone who truly suffers sooner or later comes upon this crossroad. Hence, Peterson calls his new book " We Who Wrestle with God."
Job answers this ordeal by not rejecting himself – he does not buy into the thought that he must be evil and corrupt and somehow unworthy. Job does not relapse into thinking that he must be ashamed of everything that happened to him. For better or worse, Job seems to embrace a stoic attitude.
Peterson now stopped to emphasise that anyone can learn from this, religious or not. But if this is his point – and if the morale of Job’s story indeed speaks for itself, as some universal lesson to mankind – then how is it necessary to keep launching such biting outbursts against atheism?
The pressing question remains – not addressed by Peterson – why would one want to follow this God to begin with? This vengeful, distant God, from the Old Testament, who tests and torments even his most loving subjects – can this God truly be called ‘good’? Does His nature not justify human emancipation from the Creator-created relationship (selbstbehauptung), in the first place?
We don't seem to get any further here. Instead, I propose a different exit strategy than the two terrible ‘solutions’ that Peterson suggested. From my willpower, I postulate an alternative to this corrupt world. I will create a future into existence that is better than the probable perdition that lies before us, and drive towards it with full force.
You may think that this statement is rather grandiose, but you will see that it is not. It will become evident if we consider what Peterson actually said: that Job did not conclude that existence is evil, even though evil things happened to him. “Job said: the fact that I suffer does not make my intelligence so strong that I can judge the nature of existence in its totality.”
At this crucial point, Peterson can only maintain his position if Job reduces himself and the power of his judgment to relativity. Because if Job were to trust the power of his judgment fully, then he would inevitably conclude that existence is not good. Therefore, postponing that judgment is the best thing to do.
It is, however, inconsistent, given that Job was allowed to trust his judgment and his intellect when he came to conclusions about his own moral dispositions. So it is better to take a consistent route and rely on your own intellect and will.
Peterson does not take this route. He instead resorts to unconvincing statements to bolster his position at the crossroads. For instance, he says that someone who acts in a morally questionable way to obtain a life of luxury and status will not enjoy it nearly as much as anyone who has worked honestly for what he owns.
This statement immediately dissolves when it encounters Islam, which is a culture of conquerors who feel no guilt or shame in draining the peoples they rule over, and actively enjoy the practice. Also, in Job’s story, God Himself says that He will make Job as unhappy as possible.
From this, it follows inexorably that the crime lords and master tyrants are happier and better off than Job – this makes the statement both pointless and irrelevant.
He then states that if you acknowledge the evil nature of existence, another hell will open up beneath you, which goes even deeper than the suffering you already experience. And that this consequence gives you a practical and compelling reason to believe in the goodness of existence, even if that belief runs counter to your intuition.
This is akin to some ridiculous ‘Pascal’s Wager’ argument. You have to overrule your rational faculties to believe something that you cannot in good conscience believe, instead of relying on the rational faculties and conscience that were supposedly given to us for good reasons.
And even if it would be somehow more practical to believe that the cosmos is inherently good when you know it is not, that has nothing to do with truth-seeking or rigorous academic integrity. Moving the goalpost is what it is.
After this, our psychologist gives the example of a friend who experienced an “Auschwitz-level childhood. That friend has become a good person, even though he had every reason to be bitter and angry.
With this, Peterson wants to indicate that it is a gigantic task to make people carry the burden of the evil of existence, but that it is possible in principle. Well, yes, but – this is entirely different from leaping from atheism to theism, and then living according to a morality based on assumptions of what an afterlife would be like. One could argue that Peterson’s goal is not to convert us. But apparently that is his goal, since he rails against atheism because of its supposed societal consequences.
It is high time to argue for the total opposite of how Peterson interprets Job’s story. It is a totally natural and healthy response – and a life-affirming response – to declare about all the games that God and Satan play with Job: “Fuck off with your humble gratitude – I deserve more than this, and I want more than this!” Go to hell with: “Be grateful despite your suffering.”
It is in our nature to reject suffering and to overcome it! And as long as we are (still) acting in accordance with that nature, it proves that we are healthy, functioning, life-embracing organisms. It is in our nature to reject an existence that forces us to suffer. It is precisely this rejection which has driven all of human progress, for better or for worse, because it is who we are.
The identity of the human being is that of the suffering animal who seeks to escape its own suffering and perpetually rebels against it. We are at our strongest, our best, when we rebel against an environment that forces suffering upon us. We dream beyond the limits set upon us by nature, and our innovative, ambitious minds drive us there. This thirst for elevation is what Job’s fateful, passive suffering cannot inspire or even touch upon.
Therefore, I am forced to rewrite this story and give it a different ending. The universe is chaos at its fundamental level – it is absurdity and estrangement. This is evidenced by the fact that the atoms that comprise existence drift ever further apart in a yawning void. And even when you stand in the heart of a forest, and listen to the sounds that calm the soul, you realise that every dewdrop is a battlefield, where microorganisms are locked in mortal combat.
Now I will take you to a scene from the movie Batman v Superman. In this story, Batman addresses Superman, saying, “Your parents taught you that you are special and that you have an important purpose to fulfil. My parents died in a random street robbery. They took their last breaths on the curb and taught me something else. Namely that the universe is chaotic and meaningless unless you imprint that meaning upon existence with your own power.” In other words, the universe does not make sense unless you force it to.
With this attitude, we are moving away from the archetypal ‘good guys’. In terms of a card game such as Magic the Gathering, we are moving from colours such as green (harmonious equilibrium) and white (order), towards colors such as black, where the direction of existence has to be willed into reality through the conscious ambition of the individual – this also moves us closer to an honest and truthful relationship with our thrownness (geworpenheid). Our thrownness amidst a cosmic, abyssal void dotted with the fleeing revelations of a meandering sentience.
Returning to my initial critique, Peterson rejects open rebellion against the World Economic Forum, but he offers no answer to the situation. He talks about taking responsibility as a parent and citizen, but the space to manifest that the woke tyranny has already colonised responsibility.
He basically wants everyone to keep working from a sense of responsibility, to keep ploughing on, feeding a beast that will ultimately consume our bodies and souls. Read about this in Tolstoy’s famous letter to the liberals:
“This government – with the legislation and the entire state apparatus in its power (the army, the administration, the church, the schools and the police) – knows very well what endangers it. She will never allow those who submit to her and act under her authority to do anything that undermines her authority. Yet sensible and distinguished people will be tempted to join this government. They hope to do something good somewhere – as a form of small resistance.
In time, they will accept that you can be part of a local government that has been stripped of all power; that, as a master or professor, you may teach what you do not consider necessary yourself, but what the government instructs you to do. The making of these compromises by enlightened and honest people causes them, step by step, to withdraw from the demands of conscience. Until they are entirely dependent on the government, they get rewards and salaries for it. And while they believe they are advancing liberal ideas, they have become lowly servants and supporters of the very order they sought to oppose.”
Tolstoy argues that criticism of the regime and attempts to change it from within result in unwanted confirmation and the regime's strengthening. This insight invokes absolute desperation – it makes even more sense now to adopt an attitude of digging in and using our lives to create obstacles for the system.
So that those who take away your freedom and prevent the development of your talents will not enjoy their power and wealth. If an individual perishes in this process, then one gives up a life that cannot come to fruition under this system. Very little is lost, all things considered, and the person at least goes out with honour.
Simply put, those liberals who continue doing work that sustains the regime make things worse, not better. Peterson’s evangelist-style rhetoric ignores cancel culture and social credit, and for my generation, following his ideas will mean watching Netflix in an apartment too small ever to raise a family.
We already know that there will not be enough care personnel around to support us when we are old and frail. At the same time, the forces that push against us as we make children of ourselves are just too vast. It is pretty much already too late for that, anyway. Especially for the women of my age – and for the younger women, well. They are naturally inclined to follow the consensus, to seek the predictable safety of government jobs, and are already lost to the woke.
As a man between 30 and 40, I am better off just using the twenty years of vitality that I have left, and owning my own free time as opposed to slaving away for a government that will tax 40 to 50 per cent of my work to pay off debts that can never be paid, anyway.
Jordan Peterson, screw your call for ‘responsibility’ – because if I were truly a responsible citizen, the one sensible thing for me to do would be to rebel openly against this soul-crushing regime.
Peterson says that Woke will be stopped if ordinary people speak out against it. The truth is that the voices of ordinary people are not part of the institutional narrative. Moreover, speaking from my experience as an academic, city councillor, and EU policy advisor, that voice is actively excluded from institutional discussions.
This is effectively guaranteed by sophisticated, politically programmed algorithms and by subsidised, ideologically coordinated in-crowd networks.
To conclude: the battle must be waged at the level of politically and collectively organised resistance, not at the level of individual accommodation. Even if we end up with individual accommodation in practice, it is still the truthful answer.
Support Sid Lukkassen through BackMe, follow him via Telegram, and read the review of his book here.
