A
In some ways, I am obsessed with Jordan Peterson. He is a genius, who lately, with his veering towards radical altruism at the expense his modest, implied, formed support of rational egoism as the preferred human moral code, upsets me. My frustration with his wrong turn should lead me to never study him again. But I am not willing to abandon him yet.
He is an individualist in part, as Christians classically are, in part a bit for individualism and even self-interest. In the main, though, he and they are altruistic in their ethics and collectivism in their group-identifying prioritization.
Below is a 5:57 minute long video excerpt from Jordan’s interview with The Epoch Times in maybe 2017. I wrote notes on it and slightly edit it below for clarity and then make comments. Its title is, Jordan Peterson Explains That Collectivism is Tyranny under the Guise of Benevolence (which it is, Ed Says). A reporter is interviewing Jordan.
But, before I go over the Epoch-Times/Peterson interview tape, I will digress for a moment.
I copied and pasted this AI version of Jordan Petersons views on collectivism and individualism, posted online on 9/9/25. I will comment on the AI points:
AI: “To understand Jordan B. Peterson's views on collectivism versus individualism, consider these key points:
- Definition of Individualism: Emphasizes personal responsibility and the importance of the individual in society.”
My response: I must unpack this: Jordan does emphasize personal responsibility—as he should--but wrongly dismisses and fails to prioritize the individual’s right and obligation to assert his natural rights, his constitutional rights, his legal rights, and his property rights, and his liberty rights to run his own affairs. Jordan seriously underestimates the importance of knowing and asserting one’s rights as the vehicle for driving the route of personal individuation and asserted supercitizenship.
A corollary point to make is that Jordan mistakenly dismisses the importance and value of seeking happiness as a moral, desirable goal. This requires explanation, for if one is selfish, indulging whatever impulse one feels, or gives in to any or all desires and temptations, and claims to be an individualist and happy to boot, it is obvious that he is shallow, callow, selfish and his feeling of happiness gained by getting his way will be a high for him temporarily, but his overall feeling of being unhappiness will increase as his character and will keeps being bad or getting worse.
Happiness has an essential moral component: unless one is kind to oneself and to others, one is not a person of good will and good character. Without a benevolent deity constantly instilling love and optimism into one’s consciousness, and if one does not act ethically, then one cannot be happy. And the positive, merited happiness and attitude of the spiritually and morally good person is a goal and after effect of being noble and good, both in self-care and other care.
This happiness is compatible with and likely inseparable from asserting one’s legitimate rights and doing one’s duty.
- AI: “Definition of Collectivism: Focuses on group identity and collective goals, often at the expense of individual rights.”
My response: To be an altruist, to group-identify more than individual-identify, to prioritize collective goals over personal goals, at the expense of individual rights, is to grow evil and tyranny in the world.
AI: “
- Psychological Perspective: Individualism fosters personal growth and self-actualization, while collectivism can lead to conformity and suppression of individuality.”
My response: Jordan used to talk about how individualism fosters personal growth and self-actualization while collectivism can lead to conformity and suppression of individuality, but now, 8 years later, he has backed away from these positions somewhat. He rejects categorically individualism, self-interested, self-consciousness and egoism, accusing individualists of being guilty of Luciferian pride and rejection of godly ways.
He may think totalitarian collectivism can lead to tyranny and suppression of individuality, but his recently discovered and announced hyper-altruism promotes social and political collectivism, be that his intention or not.
AI: “
- Historical Context: Peterson discusses how collectivist ideologies have led to totalitarian regimes throughout history.”
My response: Collectivist ideologies do lead to totalitarian regimes.
AI: “
- Moral Responsibility: He argues that individualism promotes moral accountability, as individuals are seen as agents of their own choices.”
My response: Individualism does promote moral responsibility—much better and more so than collectivism, and groupists are often slaves to the collective will, whereas individualists are much more inclined to be agents of their own choices.
AI: “
- Cultural Implications: Individualism is linked to innovation and progress, while collectivism can stifle creativity and personal initiative.
My priority: Individualism is linked to innovation and progress, and collectivism always stifles creativity and personal initiative, and this will lead for humans to perish if individuating and egoist ethics are not the cultural norms of the West by 2080.
B
Here is the excerpt: “Jordan (J after this) Well, but that’s the issue is that caring for someone or for a group of people is a very complicated thing. And it doesn’t always mean, be compassionate and feel sorry for them because they’re downtrodden.”
My response: Jordan is wise here: I agree that social reform intentions often go astray with unintended consequences, especially if we grow government control over private lives by legislating morality. It is acceptable to feel compassionate for the downtrodden but growing government and socialism grows tyranny evil and groupisim with the terrible side effect of increasing the amount of people that are poor and downtrodden; socialism never works, and it and federal solutions usually make things worse.
J: “It’s not enough, like a lot of the structures that we put in place to help people over the long run are rather harsh in their operation in the short. And so, the values that are associated with that can, trait conscientiousness for example which are reasonably good predictors of more conservative leaning political beliefs aren’t very warm, fuzzy virtues.”
My response: We want warm hearts with cool heads: We want people to solve problems personally and that is the best macro-solution upon a few good strong enforced laws under limited government. If people were personally maverize most social ills would dry up and evaporate.
Jordan: “They’re cold, hard, judgmental virtues. They’re the demands for performance for example that go along in the workplace. But if you want to take care of an infant who’s crying, you want warm, instantaneous, impulsive compassion, because there’s a problem and you have the solution, right.
The baby is not. The baby is too cold. The baby needs to be fed. You can fix that right now.
If you’re dealing with, with systemic poverty, for example, of trying to determine how to how to produce more opportunity for everyone to benefit from everyone’s abilities, you have to use a hell of a lot more than compassion to get there.”
My response: I agree: Real virtue, tough love, rational virtue seems cold and harsh but for an adult or adult society, it is kinder by far in the long run.
J: “And so to think of a community in the positive sense of being driven by nothing but empathy which is really one of the central arguments of the postmodern types—at least that’s what’s driving some of their argumentation—is it’s an absurd position so it’s, so it’s not so much that they confuse the two things as they fail to differentiate the concepts.”
My response: Postmodernists feign compassion, a pretext to grab totalitarian power over the masses, and to force all to conform to their Marxist ideology, or face the torture rack, prison, or the firing squad.
Empathy, warm feelings, and compassion is no justification to brutal federal oppression of the masses as a solution far worse than the disease. They may confuse the two or lie about being compassionate just to lull the credulous, keeping mass opposition down while they gain grow, revealing their true natures and intentions once they have amassed enough arms and followers to overthrow the government and culture.
J: “I take it, it’s very, very difficult to build functional structures that help people thrive individually and socially over long periods of time.”
My response: As a proponent of mass individual supercitizenship in a free market constitutional republican government and economy, I propose that beyond these strong, limited functional structures, we fare best by having no external functional structures, but rather a personal egoist plan of individuation as each citizen’s internalized functional structure to guide her to act and save herself for the benefit of herself first, and then for all indirectly.
J: “And merely being empathetic, man, that’s just going to get you nowhere. A three-year-old is empathetic. And I’m not dismissing that. Empathy is important but as a problem-solving mechanism, it, it has very limited ability.”
My response: I agree.
Epoch Interviewer: “You talk briefly about national socialism and collectivism, the difference being from my understanding of fascism was made to control the individual. Marxism was more the control of the means of production. Socialism is more the means of controlling the fruits of production, if I’m not mistaken. And I think we have seen the destructive nature of collectivism in destroying the individual, right?”
My response: Socialism, fascism and Marxism have slight differences, but they are all altruistic and collectivist, so the evil similarities far outweigh niggling differences.
J: “Well, I think that, uh that’s actually the point in, in large part. I mean Derrida for example coined a term he called phallocentrism, which, which he regarded as the central axiomatic position of the, of the West, hey. Not only the Enlightenment West but also the Christian or Judeo-Christian, for that matter, West, prior to the Enlightenment. Derrida went after the tradition running through Judeo-Christian through modernism and the and the Renaissance and Enlightenment and criticized that. And that was the idea that and he was critical of this.
It's the presupposition that culture is first male-dominated, which is a presupposition which I take great exception to because it’s a radical oversimplification of the historical story to the degree that culture was male-dominated. It was only dominated by a very small number of males. Most males were serfs or soldiers, or, or cannon fodder for that matter, or coal miners dreadfully toiling away for their work, certainly as oppressed as women were in general by the absolute poverty of the conditions.”
My response: Jordan discovered or relays a profound truth here; historically, Western culture or any culture was not male-dominated (it was by an elite ruling class of society, dominated by a few males). Most men had it no better than most women, severely oppressed and severely impoverished.
What Jordan implies and what I will make explicit is that human rights abuses, tyranny, oppression, exploitation, enslavement of human populations everywhere, forever in the past is less the fact that these elites were male-dominated, but that the real source of the unjust treatment of the masses, both men and women, is that elites everywhere abuse and rule over the masses.
To make things better, we have to figure out how permanently to get rid of elites. That is the key to growing a just society, not going after male-domination, more an effect generated by the social structure of overbearing elites trampling the masses, than the self-generated cause of mass subjugation going on in any society. Eliminates elites, and democracy, prosperity and freedom can become worldwide, and only a worldwide citizenry of individuating supercitizens can eliminate elites, potentially forever.
J: “You know up till 1895 the average person in the Western world lived on a dollar a day in today’s money, right. So, I mean you don’t have to go back, back very far in time before you find everyone oppressed, but not by the socio-cultural system, merely by that by the absolute insane difficulty of life itself.”
My response: Well, the socio-cultural system and its outreaching institutions are oppressing the masses everywhere, in the past and in most countries today, but, to Jordan’s point, that unjust dispensation is rooted in human nature and in the nature of the world itself. To paraphrase Jordan, hierarchies for humans are naturally, instinctually constructed social structure growing out of human nature, and the Pareto principle seems to occur naturally, and thus people divide or self-divide themselves into the ruling, oppressing elites, and the rule, oppressed masses.
J: “Well, so Derrida described the West as male-dominated which I think is a, as a, it’s something to take serious issue with as, as a blatant claim. It is not differentiated enough or sophisticated enough.
And he also and he also said it was Logos because Logos is the second person of the Christian Trinity and Derrida knew that perfectly well. And so his criticism—Derrida was a smart man—make no mistake about it.”
My response: Derrida seems to condemn Western society as inherently as wholly corrupt and unjust because it is male-dominated (Men are the evil ones in this world.), Christian dominated (Christianity is the religious and moral cover for the oppressors.), and Christ or the Divine Logos is corrupt and unjust, not loving, merciful and self-sacrificing.
Christ as Logos indicates to me that the love of reason and reasoning in the West does reveal that reasoning (We reason, use language, define our terms accordingly to concepts conceived, and weave together a metanarrative for our people to live by and extract meaning, hope, happiness, salvation, and purpose from.), the West’s greatest intellectual and cultural gift to humanity, originates from Judeo-Christian sources, as well as from ancient Greek secular society (Ben Shapiro’s take that Western civilization is a happy cultural marriage of borrowings from Jerusalem and Athens.)
The admirable Stephen Hicks and other Randian intellectuals from The Atlas Society and ARI, if intellectually honest atheists and secular humanists, must acknowledge the contribution to the West, celebrating reason and reasoning, a gift from Judeo-Christian sources.
Only if the atheists, Christians, and Jews work together, can the West survive and evolve, as rational religion enables us to go forward into the future, building onto our proud, rich heritage.
What is required in 2025, is right-wing populism, not fascism, but right-wing populism, the masses educated and self-educating, becoming, a majority of them, individuating supercitizens.
When the masses, each of them is a hybrid creature, part intellectual giant, part ethical lion, part brilliant poet, and part commoner in wealth and occupation (a housewife or an electrician), when they get each of them their own lives in order, and then work together to run society, this is when elites and class structures disappear, or the differences are slight and rather inconsequential. This is Mavellnialist populism, the only cure for human tendency to set up a stratified, exploitative, tyrannical, unjust social and legal arrangement.
We are all evil more than not from birth, and social power concentration turns each of us into morally radioactive monsters, but the cure is not the Thomas Hobbes approach that an absolute monarchy is required to keep the people in line, beasts which we all are.
The solution is to train the masses up into individating supercitizens. Only then will they peacefully cooperate and police each other without the need to coerce or use violence against one another.
Power, centralized, does corrupt all, but it corrupts a citizenry of individuating supercitizens least of all. The masses must rule society if we are to have any chance at all, and that is no easy or permanent fix, for it can always crumble, going back to tyrannical, class society where the few elite inflict their will upon the longsuffering but masochistic masses eager to be dominated and abused, of someone will just do their thinking for them.
J: “And lots of things he said were correct. Like one of the propositions, he laid forth was that there was a near infinite number of ways of interpreting any situation or any text, which happens to be technically true. And that’s being discovered in all sorts of fields, including artificial intelligence.”
My response: There are infinite interpretations of anything but some interpretations are more wholesome and sensible and socially useful than others, and we want to develop those interpretations for our own sake and for society’s sake, always as ontological moderate, understanding that we need to seek, appreciate and learn from almost any alternative interpretation all the while building our primary interpretation of reality and the rightful human place in it, as our justified and justifiable grand Western narrative.
J: “So the central claim that he begins with is actually true, and it’s not surprising that it had such a powerful effect on the humanities, because it’s actually an extraordinarily powerful and, an undermining idea.
But he took it much further. He took it in directions I don’t think it should have gone in at all. But the logocentric idea is that his criticism of the idea of the logocentric society is a deep criticism of the idea that the individual as a speaking force is a communicative agent, is the appropriate, highest value upon which a culture should be built.”
My response: The Western axiomatic, fundamental assumption, that the individual, man or woman, gay or straight, regardless of color or wealth and power status, is the sovereign locus of civilizing action, legal citizenry, and the necessary ruler of his world—in voluntary conjunction and united association with the other members of the masses—this is the logocentric ideal, that the individual, the rational egoist (if we take it far enough as Rand and I have), this radically free-thinking, free-speaking, free-acting is a force for good, social justice and social harmony, this communicative and communicating agent is the highest value upon which any high culture and high civilization can and must be built—a constitutional, free market republic—all of which Derrida rejects, Peterson partially embraced—more so 8 years ago than now--, and all of which I embrace and advocate.
J: “He took that apart and criticized it, and that’s, that’s a deeper criticism, I would say, even in Marxist criticism which was mostly about unequal power relationships. Derrida went deeper than that. And the postmodernists that occupy the universities are anti-individual right now, right down, right down to the bedrock.”
My response: Derrida the professor and his acolytes, the postmodernist academics in Academia, are anti-individualist, right down to the bedrock.
This seems counterintuitive: are not members of the ruling, economic and political elite, supposed to be more individualistic than the masses they rule over?
Well, Eric Hoffer answers this better than anyone, even Jordan, and Hoffer may only hint at an answer implicitly or directly. The dirty little secret is that members of a ruling class, academics, soldiers, clergy, plutocrats, generals, journalists, labor leaders or politicians are considered as a generalization to be more individualistic than the masses they rule over.
Reality points to it being the other way around: rulers run in packs, and the most powerful ruler is the most evil member of his class, because he is the most selfless, purely group-oriented, self-hating, and power-addicted and power wielding, a real menace to society.
The masses in Hofferian scheme of things, are group-oriented and run in packs leading lives of quiet despair, but they retain enough individualism and self-interest not to be totally vicious, utterly altruistic and ideologically possessed, in their non-mass movement phase of existing. If radicalized, then pure altruism and ideological zealotry drives them to be crazy and cruel.
Once they are awakened to serve as cannon fodder for the revolution in service to the radical elite and elitists that command their fervent allegiance and self-sacrifice as minions of the holy cause on the march to remake society, these minions of this mass movement readily die for their cause, but, even then, their group-orientedness is not as pure and complete as the Stalinist monsters at the head of the movement.
Derrida, the postmodernists and the cultural Marxist ideologues that captured American Academia, in the last 20 years as chronicled by both Stephen Hicks and Christopher Rufo, they use skeptical epistemology as a rhetorical weapon to divorce the masses from the traditional grand narrative and dispensation which they lived under and supported. But deep down the epistemology of the postmodernists is totalistic, being the fanatics and true believers that they are. They are pure, nihilistic altruist moralists—immoralists actually. Their collectivist economics if Marxism. Their collectivist government arrangement is totalitarian, be it secular Russia or sacred Iran, fascist Hitler, or Communist Stalin.
These postmodernists feign skeptical and relativistic epistemology as a weapon to overthrow the culture and set the masses adrift so they can be swept into the revolutionary mass movement while scared, confused and directionless, desperate to find an ism to escaped from their despised selves into, an ism allowing them to escape from their unbearable, frustrated blemished selves.
Postmodernists are epistemological absolutists or dogmatists, true believers in what holy cause they are so proud and willing to fight for and die for. A proponent or follower of a mass movement, which justifies its existence and wicked actions based upon a holy cause which provides all the answers anyone could ever want, is a pure collectivist in his social, religious, economic and political associations—this is how true believers, postmodernist while arranging conditions for the revolution—reveal themselves as revolutionary, epistemological ultraists or zealots once openly violently taking over society, then the purges commence.
This is what ties postmodernism to Marxism: epistemological collectivsim links directly to a person moral collectivism (radicalized, pure group-oriented altruism); economic collectivism or socialism enforced on all, and finally in legal, social structures of totalitarian centralized government, political collectivism.
This is how postmodernism is epistemological cover for bring in Marxism and totalitarianism, a most undesirable and wicked ‘improvement’. Stephen Hicks has written and exposed this use of postmodernist epistemology as a cover for advancing the revolution while the masses remain asleep and still attached to the status quo and its cultural story.
This is not just a cultural Marxist phenomenon and story; it applies to and could be the goal of the radicals to introduce upon a free people other members of the collectivist family of social arrangements, systems like fascism, nationalism, theocratic regimes like Iran, Leftist or rightist regimes. They are all postmodernist skeptics about the system they seek to replace, until it is cast down and they their real, total epistemological certainty, black and white thinking, is exposed and admitted to. They can do anything to anyone and feel morally justified in doing it for the cause.
What dismayed me is that at a pivotal time a few years ago in my intellectual maturation process, though I was 60 years old, Jordan was central in teaching me that individuality was the sovereign idea of the West, but his early exposure to socialism and his love of altruism as a cultural Christian.
He may suffer from a still residual tendency as a professor to rule the masses rather than allow them liberty to maverize and run their own lives (This is psychological speculation about him from my theorizing, no evidence of it being so), he seems alarmed about all the masses the individuals doing their own thing on a grand personal scale, or his realignment with conservatives and Christians is making him back away from his earlier promotion of individualism.
He is coming down hard now on Ayn Rand, individualism, egoism as the avatars of Luciferian pride, selfishness and rebellion against God, the sources of evil in the world. Peterson needs to nudge Christians to accept Randist egoism and merited prideful individualism and finding happinesnes in this world, and to blend that with Christian faith—less altruism please and more individuating and egoism accented—so we can reach my goal of Mavellonialist rational religion for the masses in the future, the individuating supercitizens.
J: “And so that’s partly why they push collectivism to such a degree. They don’t give a dam who you are. They care what your group identity is.”
My response: Jordan is right in this last statement. Postmodernists, Leftist ideologues and cultural Marxists and Progressive push collectivism to gain total power over the masses, and that is their only aim, all else is lies and cover for their true goal.
You as one of the masses, your personal identity is irrevelant. You are only an avatar of your group identities.
The masses as individuating supercitizens must counter than insisting that anyone’s group identities are important but secondary in importance to the individual identity which each one of the masses is to and should cultivate who she is as a living, accomplished great soul and living angel, a living singularity. She will push altruism and other care and others interests as her minority emphasis, but her primary obligatory function—as commanded from on high by the Mother and the Father and other good deities, Individuators and Individualists all, is her enlightened pursuit of her glorious self-realized self-interest in building God’s kingdom here on earth, converting chaos into cosmos, dark into light, and hate into love.
No comments:
Post a Comment