Buddy Jordan

We’ve finally hit the tipping point. Today, more people know about Jordan Peterson than don’t (at least among my friends). So it’s time to give this man an introduction. Hopefully, one that provides a framework for better understanding. First off, he’s hard to understand and this guy needs to be broken into parts.

Prof

Initially, Jordan was a free psychology professor on the web. And just like the world has leading experts on gold, we have them in psych. Jordan is an expert in two areas: why we do bad things (e.g., Nazis and commies) and archetypal stories including those from the Bible. (An archetype is a recurrent symbol in art, literature, or mythology—like the mythological archetypes of good and evil.)

Like most professors, Jordan is well versed in a number of disciplines and he’s smarter than most. Why? Because he’s dug deep into his specialization and connected the dots.

As a young man, he visited Europe and got hung up on the ills of the early 1900s. So much so that Jordan had nightmares until he figured it all out. This experience plays a major role in his beliefs. He’s also an expert at illuminating old stories, including some from the Bible, and says, “maybe you can learn something from your dead ancestors.”

Postmodernism

Jordan’s now extended himself beyond mere intellectualism to promote what he feels is a dignified belief system. And his passion for this project is great. To understand, you need a quick summary:

  • Piaget said people are deeply rooted in their belief systems (axioms).
  • Western Civilization was built on the axiom of capitalism, democracy, and Christianity.
  • Modernists were the people who designed our Western system.
  • Liberals and progressive conservatives took it further. They brought in adjustments to capitalism (like the welfare state) and lightened the effects of Christianity. Most people today agree with these changes.
  • Postmodernists take it another step. They’re attempting to alter capitalism to favour those who’ve been oppressed, and then want to eliminate religion completely.
  • Jordan opposes both spouts of this ideology. He says favouring the oppressed is all bunk. Capitalism, by definition, is unequal and you’ll only ruin what we’ve got. Attempting utopia is what the communists tried and that was a murderous disaster. He’s also opposed to the idea of crushing the Lord. His alternative is to redefine spirituality through natural psychology, philosophy, and a bunch of old stories.
  • Nietzsche said as religion falters, society has to develop its own set of rules.
  • Jordan says don’t let postmodernists do it. They can’t be in charge.

Complicated, with two parts. First let’s deal with religion. Back when we were all churchgoers, getting out the message was easy. Every Sunday you’d visit the village priest and he’d assign you a purpose. Those days are gone. Today’s theologians go on speaking tours and write books. Jordan is offering a new twist. He doesn’t sell you on dogma (Church rules), he goes straight for the spirit. Never asking for faith, he uses only reason. And he tells many stories from long ago, written well before religion, plus a few from modern day (e.g., Disney movies). To him, Biblical stories are just part of the mix and he rarely mentions the word God.

Net result: audiences all over the world are listening because Jordan is filling a hole. He may not be our modern day Jesus, but he’s a good village priest. It’s unique what he’s doing—so competent and complete—and a lot of people are grateful. To my knowledge, he’s the only person doing this. So bully for him. One’s belief system is a big part of life, surely worth discussing. So again, bully for him.

Politics

Make no mistake he’s also political, though not in the traditional manner. Jordan is opposed to postmodernism, which associates him with the right. But he’s not mad at the likes of Paul Martin or Jean Chretien. His fight starts with Justin Trudeau.

It’s not about gay marriage, doctor-assisted suicide (called MAID), or legalizing dope. He’s nuts over forced political correctness, new-style feminism, and a host of socially oriented changes. He sees much of postmodernism as being based in Marxism (which scares the heck out of him) and figures with leaders like them, we’re headed for less.

It’s a cultural revolution as societies around the world plot their new courses. Are we going the way of postmodernism—which has infiltrated government, education, and the legal system—or will we generally stay put? It’s a big idea and a big fight. That’s why lefty protesters always show up at his talks.

Now everything for him doesn’t revolve around politics. He’ll also debate popular atheists over the belief in God (not the weird parts). So it’s a two part approach, which of course makes him more confusing.

Summary

Intellectuals defending belief is nothing new, getting involved in politics is. It’s really not their field. As a result, old Jordan was ransacked. The dirty game of campaigning targeted him early and he’s been labelled with all the regular anti-conservative stamps (like, racist, fascist, and puppy-hater).

Don’t kid yourself, slander is done on both sides. Making truth near impossible in a world of fake believe. But now that you have a framework to see Jordan for what he is—free professor, mentor for your own world views, and political activist resisting new change—take what you wish and leave the rest. But please, let the man speak.

Note: Here’s his wiki page (it’s good) and a previous article about him. You can also watch him at Oxford. If you’d like more on postmodernism see Social Control and Left is for Liberal.

Social Control

Politics has always had two sides to it—social and economic. But today there are three because the social piece has been split. We have the old Whig-liberal agenda pulling away from archaic rules of the church and a new entry called postmodernism, which may be something crazy.

The Bible

Britain and America used to be very Christian countries and the church held great power. And though the separation of church and state occurred a very long time ago, much of Christianity remained within legislative life.

In political terms: conservatives argued to preserve the status quo, while liberals fought to break away. Over time, liberals were successful. They brought us things like:

  • Sunday shopping
  • Elimination of school prayer
  • Elimination of censorship in music, movies, and TV
  • The elimination of capital punishment
  • Porn sites and dirty magazines
  • How late bars are allowed to stay open
  • Ease of divorce (a big deal in Ireland)

So when they say the governments of China and Iran are conservative, they’re not talking about economics. They’re talking about this kind of stuff—social rules. And though we’re abound with social freedoms here in CanAmerica, in many countries they are not.

Postmodernism A

Western Civilization was built during the 16-19th centuries based on the ideals of capitalism, democracy, and the values of Christianity. This philosophy was called modernism and it ruled the day up until around the 1950s. Then a new thinking emerged.

Postmodernism arrived after the establishment of the welfare state and during the glorification of communism. Remember Russia, the Soviet Union, and the Eastern Bloc didn’t totally collapse until 1991. Only then were the dysfunctions and social atrocities observed. Before then, many in the West believed communism was just great and romanticized with the thought.

Liberals and progressive conservatives of the day continued their push away from social restrictions, namely those involving religion—just like the commies said. Add to the list:

  • Government sponsored gambling
  • Government funded abortion
  • Gay marriage
  • Doctor-assisted suicide
  • Legalization of pot (if you tie it to the prohibition of booze and then its reversal)

Now you see where we’re headed. Religion, specifically Christianity’s, influence over everyday European and North American legislative life is almost done. (And so is the ethic of hard work.)

Christian postmodernists

Much of the communist blame put on religion stemmed from its view that it only caused wars. That due to its arrogance in serving differing gods, religion only led to conflict. And who needs more of that? But some Christians took note and wanted to join in. They liked the balancing out of capitalism through welfare states and dawned a progressive movement of their own. They questioned why Christianity had to be so strict, opposing rules like not being able to dance or drink. And more recently, they embraced followers of other faiths by abandoning the rule that only Christians go to heaven.

New sheriff

Without question, early postmodernism was seen as good. The idea of getting away from Old Testament punishments like hanging and minimum sentencing and hard spanking your kids was greeted with relief. And now even Christians were dancing. But the theory got perverted when a new sheriff came to town. This sheriff brought with it a new interpretation of the ideal. One you could call post-postmodernism. Its mission is threefold:

  • The further elimination of religion by crushing the Bible, promoting atheism instead
  • Forced political correctness, uneducated social justice, and limiting freedom of speech
  • A “take no prisoners” attitude towards adversaries 

This new crew has no patience for faith and is in a hurry to make change. And no one is allowed to disagree. Opponents are quickly shouted down and labelled as Nazi, fascist, misogynist, or racist, while the left-wing fan base naively plays along. Not only are these warriors relentless they hold positions of power, which shows one hundred people really can change the world. How? While dummies like us are out working this groupthink has overtaken government, the education system, and the judiciary, providing the influence they need to implement their agenda—the new liberalism.

Freedom

So here’s the complicated part. Originally, liberals fought for social freedom—away from the Bible, and now conservatives are fighting for freedom—away from political correctness / social justice / limitations on free speech. So now everyone’s a freedom fighter, albeit for different causes.

What’s funny is that political correctness will soon be re-implementing censorship into music, TV, and the rest of the arts. The same censorship that liberals fought to oust (which puts new meaning on Eminem’s song, White America—where he lashes out at Dick Cheney for criticizing lyrics). And what’s worse is that both sides are now playing dirty—there are no more good guys. For years, liberals were psychologically comforted by believing they were nice. But today there is no blind nice. This new group is just as dirty and intolerable as the far right.

Summary

There has always been two sides to politics and now there are three. When it comes to taxes and money, economists keep changing their minds so no one really knows who’s right. Social factors play a much larger role in life.

Postmodernism was initially good, for why not try to make society better. And truth be told, religion did need a good swift kick in the pants. But it’s a far cry from criticizing religion to eliminating it, and I don’t think we’re ready for a world without God. I don’t think it’s psychologically healthy, and even if it is, I feel it’s all coming too fast. (Nobody is taking into consideration the risks.)

The problem then intensifies as voters get sucked into identifying with brand-based politics. Shouting “I’m a liberal or I’m a con” is exactly what extremists want because they know they’ll eventually get their chance. That’s when they implement their far-winged dream. And even if you’re a lefty, you should never agree with the tact. The freedom to disagree is a tenant to our social system. Nothing works without it.

This new drive for social control has more to come and to be honest, it scares me. I believe it will be successful because Canadians aren’t the type to jump up and fight. We’d rather keep things simple and get back to sleep—living under the guise of being nice. But remember, when you tire of this new social order, it all started with your soul.

Note: Here’s an explanation by U of T professor Stephen Hicks.