Friday, October 15, 2021

Non-fiction: Review of Twelve Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos by Jordan Peterson

Full disclosure: I am one of many politically moderate people who +/-10 years ago became aware of burgeoning social movements, and with more trust than thought, supported them. Fairness, equal rights, justice, all are good things to get behind, right? Looking at early reviews on this blog, undoubtedly you will find a wildly sympathetic ear to many concerns—feminism, racism, sexism, and other types of discrimination. The female characters in this book are treated like trash... But as time went on, and many of these movements came to the forefront of the media, I began to question my blind support. Despite knowing there were real issues and livelihoods at stake, and despite knowing justice was not being served in every case, I also knew not everything I was witnessing was cohesive. I needed to look in more detail.

It became clear there were no common agendas. Unlike the social justice movements of the 19th and 20th centuries, today there are no “movements” per se, just individuals or smaller groups pushing varying degrees of viewpoints, conservative to extreme, all from differing places and platforms. It’s a shotgun blast of feelings and facts. And so I started to put more thought into it, and look into what experts, and people who had more time than me to invest, had to say. What, after all, can we look to as a baseline in the modern world when reality and opinion are so spread?

As with many people, one of the touchpoints I have discovered is Jordan Peterson. Amazingly eloquent, he is able to articulate many of the issues in the media with an eye to detail and fact that offer his views credence. But what offers the most credence, in my opinion, is the constant return to psychology and sociology—the hooves of the herd animals that we are. Indeed, sometimes women are treated like trash, just as men are also—in fiction and reality. As such, I decided to give Peterson’s popular 2018 book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos a go to see what thoughts and ideas lay behind the web content.

Regardless what the reader knows or thinks about Peterson, let it first be said that 12 Rules for Life is an extremely thought-provoking mix of informed thought on philosophy, religion, ethics, mythology, psychology, sociology, biology, and several other areas of study. Agree or disagree with Peterson, he is at least an erudite, inquisitive, intelligent human who has a passion for digging into the depths of the human psyche and social world trying to uncover facts. He delivers his view into this wide sphere with brute honesty, research, and personal perspective. Bridging the gap between science and the humanities, he likewise looks to understand the subjective, qualitative aspects of existence in which music, paintings, fiction and other forms of human creation try to capture this thing called ‘life’. His philosophical stance is fundamentally Buddhist/Christian (if one looks to the aspect of Christianity which deals with pain and suffering), and views it through a Daoist dichotomy of chaos and order. The 12 Rules look to identify ways of keeping these two sides in balance such that the suffering can be dealt with in realistic, personal fashion.

The shape of the book is, unsurprisingly, twelve chapters. In each, Peterson starts by stating its rule, then proceeds, through anecdote, analysis, reference, and exposition to highlight the sociological, psychological, philosophical, or whatever the combination may be which underpins his thinking behind the rule. In almost every case/rule this goes in depth. It produces fascinating psychological readings of various myths, including the Bible, literary breakdowns on ethics, e.g. Dostoevsky, and meaningful recounting of personal history and experience, from child to parent—Peterson’s own experience as human, writer, father, psychologist, etc. It is a rich, humanitarian monologue.

Overall, the twelve rules are practical, common sense that agree with our inner sensibilities, even as they may clash with our expectations of how things ‘should be’. We may not like it, but there is a social hierarchy inherent to humanity, for example. Some are stronger, some are weaker. So, what to do about it? Peterson’s suggestions represent practical goals that people can strive for, and as a result potentially find subjective improvement in their lives, regardless at which point in the hierarchy they find themselves, and in the broader sense, at what point in the sphere of mental health they are. From another perspective, the rules can be a litmus test. Whether or not a person ultimately chooses to personally adopt the rules is up to them, but going through the thought process to consider them is at a minimum constructively challenging.

One example rule is: keeping home/personal space clean. Whether it be house, apartment, office, room, etc., Peterson admonishes keeping these spaces generally tidy and organized. I have read derisive commentary about this, as if it were the path to personal enlightenment. Taken in isolation, I understand the commentary; keeping a tidy room is not going to solve a depressed person’s problems. Taken in the broader context of what Peterson is describing, namely balancing chaos vs order and the other eleven rules, it makes sense, however. Maintaining one’s living space is a simple, controllable way of keeping instability and the threat it represents at bay. Knowing where objects and things are located, not to mention keeping the things-to-do list short, is one less worry than an unknown pile of stuff on the floor.

What might be a lot for some people to handle in 12 Rules is the force with which Peterson delivers his message. We often think of psychology, sociology, mythology, etc. as being fluid, or at least more subjective. They are softer than the so-called hard sciences. Contrarily, Peterson delivers his message with strong conviction. There is little room for argument, which may not sit well with some looking for a softer message. The truth is sometimes supposed to hurt, Peterson would likely say. Let that be a guide point whether or not you would appreciate the book. Moreover, there is only a minimum of sourcing. This is not to say that every statement needs to be backed up with peer-reviewed research, rather that the reader is sometimes—sometimes—left uncertain where they stand between Peterson’s views and science’s. To be fair, it’s his right to express views as he sees fit, and our responsibility to evaluate.

Another area of potential difficulty for some readers will be Peterson’s persistent reference to Christianity. While it’s clear to me that Peterson’s usage and psychological analyses of biblical stories is in the abstract (i.e. as human creation rather than universally transcendent cosmology), nevertheless there will be readers who walk away with the impression Peterson is pushing religious propaganda. He plays with both sides, meaning there can be a blurring of the line between Christianity as an Earth-bound, practical form of religion and as an abstract, immutable belief. But in sum, it does seem clear that for Peterson the Bible, and the stories and wisdom it contains, are intrinsically human, not extrinsically. For people unable to segregate the two, there may be some difficulties. (For the record, I am agnostic.)

Given the conviction of Peterson’s delivery and injection of personal perspective, every person will walk away from 12 Rules with their own views and impressions, more so than a lot of other books. For me personally, I found it a fascinating commentary on several subjects of interest—literature, religion, psychology, and philosophy among them. The rules themselves offered specific lenses with which to view myself—highly engaging thought exercises regardless of whether I ultimately decided they were applicable to my life or not. Thus, for people who like Peterson’s web content, the book recommends itself. Be aware, however, it is significantly denser and heavier than a four minute Youtube video. For those who are on the fence or who dislike Peterson, the book is at least worth the first 100 pages; he explores fundamental aspects of human nature in a way that each of us consciously or subconsciously crave. After that you could decide for yourself whether the remaining pages are worthwhile.


  1. oh boy, here i go never returning to this website ever again

    1. And here I was hoping the review was objective enough to forestall such immaturity.

      Have you read the book? Have you even read the review?

  2. I don't think I could ever take Jordan Peterson seriously. All this nonsense about chaos dragons and cultural marxism... This book is just a self-help-book linked to horrendous rightwing perspectives.

    Also, let's not forget: This is the guy who broke down in tears talking about the Disney movie Frozen.

    1. The book has gravitas like a steam engine; it's heavy, which makes me curious about your comment. Would you be able to desribe in a little more detail what you mean by chaos dragons and cultural Marxism? Chaos is a part of the book, but dragons and Marxism aren't significant pieces, unless I missed something.

      Also, I knew going in what a flashpoint Peterson is. My radar was constantly spinning, looking for any propaganda which belied a political motive. In the end, I couldn't find anything overt. There are a few views which indirectly align with the right, but there are likewise views which indirectly align with the left. Perhaps most importantly, throughout Peterson seemed to be driving at the individual, not the political.

      Have you read the book?

    2. Well, I knew about Jordan Peterson long before I’ve read this book. I mean, when did Peterson’s debate with Slavoy Zizek happen? Was that last year? Or two years ago? Man, thanks to Covid it’s so hard to tell these days… But that certainly helped me coming to some conclusions regarding Jordan Peterson. Anyway, Chaos Dragons (I mean, that’s just a more Jungian description for his ideas regarding chaos) and cultural Marxism are pet peeves he pursues outside this book but of course, I couldn’t shake off the knowledge that things like that seem to occupy his mind while reading this book. Also, I couldn’t ignore things like his all-meat-diet and how he then whined about how drinking mere apple juice turned his stomach inside out. So, for me the person Jordan Peterson and his statements were definitely part of my experience while reading this book.

      What I can say is that as a self-help-book, it is okay. I mean, it’s certainly on the more pop-science-side of things. I mean it’s just my opinion but what you describe as “gravitas” struck me as overwrought and a very conversational tone when points needed to be driven home. Overall, the actual self-help content was actually hindered by needless philosophical pondering – especially since the philosophical ideas in the book strike me as pop-science-stuff. A lot of it seems deep at first but for me most of it ranged from banal to outright hilarious. The lobster-bit seems okay while reading it but upon reflection I just laughed at the ineptitude of the metaphor. “Think of the lobster…” is like the perfect start to a parody of a TED talk about mental health.

      And then there’s the rightwing-stuff.

      One section that is still stuck in my mind is the one about “Rescuing The Damned”. The one about how any friends who are struggling are just victimizing themselves on purpose. And people who try to help are egoists who try to improve their image. And actually, wouldn’t it be much better to cut off any friends who can’t help themselves and rather than asking for help, help yourself. That’s as rightwing as it gets. You got the “pull yourself up by your bootstraps”-mentality and the attitude that you should be suspicious of anyone asking for help. The latter immediately made me think of rightwingers accusing black women of being “welfare-queens”.

      Also, a person who believed that stuff in real life wouldn’t be a friend. That person would simply be an asshole. So, that section both didn’t work politically and as self-help-advice.

      And I just reread the section to make sure I got nothing wrong and saw that he used as an example for his point an excerpt from a novel from the 19th century… You can’t get more unserious. The sex-worker-context of the chosen excerpt also makes it more complicated than what Peterson writes there. If anything, his interpretation of the excerpt is incompetent. It just made me laugh when he started quoting a Russian novel from the 19th century to tell his readers what fake-friends are. It’s hilarious! There’s nothing serious or intelligent about what was done there.

    3. Ok, that doesn’t really explain what chaos dragons or cultural Marxism are, but I understand better. Thanks.

      Describing Peterson’s book as “pop science” is a surprise to me. The zoology of lobsters may be presented in light detail, agreed, but the analyses of Dostoevsky, Biblical myth, and other literature is penetrating and complex. The psychological, ethical, and philosophical exposition is likewise layered. I could argue, in fact, that in some ways it is a poor self-help book because of the depth. I’m sure it loses some people along the way precisely for the seriousness with which the subject matter is treated. After all, not everyone enjoys detailed critiques of Dostoevsky. (Have you read Dostoevsky? If you haven’t, try Crime and Punishment.) Regarding the gravitas, how many times does Peterson hammer on the idea of pain and suffering? Innumerable. I walked away from the book feeling a little lucky that I do not experience such a degree of suffering in my regular life, as well as more empathy for people around me who do. That is heavy (gravitas).

      Regarding the “rightwing stuff”, I’m having trouble following the logic. It seems you have taken an example involving an individual relationship and extrapolated it to the socio-political level. The parts of the book about helping and asking for help I interpreted differently. What I saw is: be careful of “friends” who only take from you. Would you be friends with someone who every day asked you for money, a shoulder to cry on, and a ride to school but never wanted to do those things for you in return? Probably not for long. Peterson’s advice seems to be to avoid those assholes, and instead befriend people who reciprocate and support. This is an entirely different situation than a poor person asking the government for financial support. Thus, it’s interesting you extrapolate so far...

      Why is using a scene from a 19th century novel “unserious”? That’s an odd comment. Do you assume “old” novels are no longer relevant to people today? If yes, where do you draw the line? 1900? 1950? 1999? 2005? 2020? Also, “sex worker” is just part of the woman’s character profile. It doesn’t change the fact she is a human with emotions, needs, a dynamic psyche, existential questions—all the facets which make her fundamentally human, and therefore still relatable to this day. I would love to hear you tell a Humanities professor that Dostoesvky is no longer “serious” and see the response.

      You are young and idealistic. Great – really. There are progressive ideas worth fighting for. Society needs to adapt and change in order to improve. But there are also perennial facts, aspects of human existence that are universal – regardless left, right, or dorsal wing. From another angle, why do many-many people still laud Dostoevsky today? Is it because they are stuck in some rusty, dusty past? Does he speak to universal questions and truths in the human soul? Or is it for other reasons? Not everything is political… Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. 😉

    4. Look, I’m not looking to start a debate here. That’s why I didn’t elaborate on my points in my last comment as much as I could have. That comment was already long enough as it is. Clearly, we disagree on Peterson’s style and his style-choices. What you described as “gravitas”… Man, his ideas about hierarchy… again, something where my alarm bells went off. There’s a lot of rightwing stuff in how he deals with that topic.

      I see connotations in sections like “Rescuing the Damned” that apparently are invisible to you. Like this line “But it is not easy to distinguish between someone truly wanting and needing help and someone who is merely exploiting a willing helper.”. My alarm bells go off reading that line. By building an equivalence between someone who is exploiting people and someone who needs help, Peterson is portraying compassion and help as something questionable, something that one should be suspicious of. And the logic of this suspicion leads to rightwing-tropes that portray the poor as lazy and make a virtue out of “pull yourself up by your bootstraps”. The section even ends with “And none of this is a justification for abandoning those in real need to pursue your narrow, blind ambition, in case it has to be said.” which makes a lie of what the section just spent over a hundred words on. Everything above that last sentence is saying it’s super-hard to distinguish between people with real need and people who want to exploit you and that ultimately everyone is better off fending for themselves and being suspicious of anyone asking for help. That last sentence is just a disingenuous way to hide the right-wing undercurrent of the presented arguments.

      It’s strange you call me “young and idealistic” because your reading of Peterson certainly strikes me as very idealistic and overly optimistic. Like you mentioned that he wants friendships based on reciprocity. Your apparent reading is way more optimistic than mine. There was this article in the New York Times called “How To Re-Arrange your Post-Pandemic Friendscape” ( which perfectly described what thinking of friendship as a reciprocal affair means: “Rather than thinking about who you want to keep or purge from your social network, Suzanne Degges-White, a professor of counseling at Northern Illinois University, suggested imagining how you want to arrange your “friendscape,” where people inhabit the foreground, middle ground or background depending on how much time and emotional energy you invest in them. It requires daily or weekly attention to maintain foreground friends, so there are necessarily a limited number of slots (four to six maximum).” Acting like your relationships require an Excel-spreadsheet to make sure all the relationships are “reciprocal” is a bad way to approach your relationships. So, I would certainly not consider “Make sure your friendships are reciprocal” good advice. Because the idea it leads to is thinking relationships are slots you fill with people that satisfy some sort of equation of what supposedly “friendship” is.

    5. As for the Dostoevsky-stuff… I know Oscar Wilde said life imitates art but thinking the best way to talk about friendship is to quote Russian fiction from the 19th century is a) pretentious, b) ends up being very shallow if it isn’t taken seriously. And Peterson didn’t. Look, her being a sex-worker and the other character being a poor dude adds WAY more complexity to the scene than what Peterson presents. Gender, class, the historical setting of the novella, the existentialist philosophy and all the hang-ups from being a work of fiction written by an author: All that is ignored in Peterson’s flat analysis of this being about a helper and a person who needs help. That’s what makes it unserious.

      I’m just gonna end with this: Unless you have a “death of the author”-review-policy, the work Jordan Peterson has done outside this book is very relevant in understanding where the rightwing-stuff is lurking in this book. I wouldn’t have to explain his positions on cultural Marxism, stuff like Chaos dragons and why one should read right-wing connotations into his work to you if you had done your research on who Jordan Peterson is.

      (Sorry for the two comments... The character-limit made it necessary :) )

    6. Ok, I guess we need to agree to disagree. :) Thanks for taking the time to leave lengthy comments. I read every word. Regardless of your political position, I wish you the best of luck. I am an old man, so I know you're young. :) As you get older, I hope you find satisfaction in whatever you seek, and if you stop by on this blog again, feel free to comment again. (And do read Dostoevsky; he's still one of the greatest ever. ;) -Jesse

    7. This morning just out of curiosity I put on the debate between Slavoy Zizek and Jordan Peterson and I had forgotten how embarrassing of a performance it was for Peterson. Of course, it was about Marxism because Peterson is obsessed with that topic. Right at the start Peterson admits he hasn’t read any of Zizek’s work – the person he’s supposedly there to debate. So, that was rather rude and lazy of Peterson. And from what he’s saying it sounds like all he did was skim the Communist Manifesto as research for the debate and all his talking points are just things he ‘thinks’ are true about the ideas of Marx and Engels. Man, good thing you can watch this for free on Youtube. He even starts by describing the principles of the Communist Manifesto as “axioms”. AXIOMS?! Where did he even get that idea from… Man, Peterson is such a shallow thinker and bad academic.

      Here’s the link:

      I think it’s important to see Peterson in action to realize what a charlatan that guy is.

      I've read Dostoevsky. Crime and Punishment was already mentioned… Demons is also good. I just have to mention, though, that Dostoevsky towards the end in his life turned into a HUGE pro-Zarist reactionary. Like he claimed to be a pacifist and to be against any kind of political violence… BUT he was in favor of Russia destroying the Ottoman Empire and wanted a revival of the Byzantine Empire. And Dostoevsky’s pessimistic portrayal of humans and how there’s no such thing as peace for a human society has to be understood as a critique of utilitarian and utopian strands of arguments from the 19th century (since I mentioned Oscar Wilde, his essay “The Soul Of Man Under Socialism” is definitely a good example of the Utopian perspective). So, his pessimism was mainly directed at the idea of the pointlessness of striving for a better kind of social order that is expected to solve all the problems of the (what Dostoevsky perceived as inherent) hedonistic selfishness of individuals. But I think as a fitting repudiation of this perspective I would offer (let’s stay in Russia) Leo Tolstoy’s “The Kingdom Of God Is Within You”. You might not necessarily agree with the Christian angle but I think it offers a fitting answer to Dostoevsky’s pessimism by acknowledging his perspective but adding that since humans are so flawed a better social order that pushes against that hedonistic selfishness is the tool that is needed to address that. Rather than giving up on societal progress and development, pushing for it should be one of the main-tools to deal with the not-so-great qualities of humanity.

      I just wanted to add that last bit since Dostoevsky has been mentioned so often at this point 😊.

  3. Jesse,
    I've just discovered this blog and not willing to throw it out because the author is newly deceived about who Jordan Petersen's is, or his political agendas.

    < but I will eventually , before I get too attached >

    < which in 2021 strikes me as profoundly weird, as Petersen was at the center of rightwing and Neoreactionist agitation social-political network on youtube, for almost a decade!

    One That helped put Trump in power, and normalized vocal antiwomen, antitrans and ant immigrant activism. The list of who's who , who platformed him in the prior 10 years ( many of whom are since banned ) were the list of Far and New ONLINE Right & who he helped to grow. )

    He himself dogwhistles against women being allowed to choose their sexual partners < that is not out out of context . Its practically an exact quote > Promotes outrageous and dangerous pseudoscience ( his all meat diet ) or blaming drinking applesjuice to chronic insomnia and mental illness ( when it was factually akathisia from out of control Klonopin & Benzo addictions >

    While he may be Pretending to tell others harsh truths ( and you bought this myth ) ... thats only because you dont understand/ havent heard from Petersens own mouth that

    >>>He literally doesnt believe in ANY Objective all.<<<

    His Philosophy on truth ( which he misrepresents as Pragmaticism ) is actually quite elastic and ego preserving... Its anything which promotes or advances the survival of the self--- and no external fact which doesnt do this is admitted!

    He's Not really a Christian in any sense or a Buddhist. nor Taoist. He is a Nietzschean , and not a very good one.
    < have you read the Tao Te Ching? John C Wu 's translation and Ursula K Le Guins Interpretations are both recommended > .

    His Lobster Metaphor is rank pseudoscience and ought to be enough to get his credentials cancelled. > He is LITERALLY a former Harvard Clinical Psychologist telling Outrageous whoppers here. Lobsters are Invertebrates , they are not , nor ever have been a model for human society nor human cognition. NEVER. It doesn't matter they use serotonin ( ugh ) . So do Yeast.

    His entertaining Faux eruditeness is that of an Academic Showman cum preacher, and like the carnival preacher of old or stage magician, the fog of Impenetrable prose is mask to confuse the gullible or simply the charitable. It doesn't matter what nonsense he peddles about the lobster, he using as slight of hand to tell an outrageous lie. Its bad psychology, bad evolutionary science, bad neuroscience, and terrible anthropology.

    "It seems you have taken an example involving an individual relationship and extrapolated it to the socio-political level."

    This is a True fact, but its not Morgoth who did that. You absorbed the lesson >VERY< VERY well, but misplaced the point. That IS what Jordan Petersen's does. He does this himself in his many videos explaining his book. MorgOth was actually educating you because there are easily 10,000 other examples of Petersen doing this exact same thing. That IS the Point of Petersen's work. Morgoth was just putting a highlighter to it for you, as this is the Hook of a LONG CON, and else he would have to refer to Petersen's talks and lectures ( which is an utter thankless slog & many others have already done this work ) .

    If that thing is something you object to, your good faith and charity in the Petersen project is sadly misplaced.

    Adam Black 1/ x

  4. But there are thousands of people who already discovered that exact same thing.

    The only difference is you read a book which wildly softpedals this, and didnt discoverers this AFTER you were sending him hundreds of Dollars a Month on his Patreon. You didnt Buy teh Monorail. or musical instruments or whatever else he was selling in River City. You liked a deeply rich erudite book that left you feeling wiser, by disguising its aims.

    < I never noticed Lovercraft was racist, and was shocked that he was a fan of Adolph Hitler. There ya go. Maximum Charity has limits >

    Your Blog seems Pretty good. The Principal of Maximum extended Good Faith is usually the mark of a decent man. As someone whos joined a Few cults ( albeit with more suspicion than you show here ) there are times when it should be revoked like a drawbridge:

    1)When an academic abandons the ethics of their field,
    2) publicly agitates against civil rights protections,
    and 3) announces they want to Create a New Religion, with themselves as the center, ----These ARE the Times!!! >

    You are not wrong for granting him maximimum charity, from a self help book which mostly disguises its hard right political agenda behind some Chicken Soup style pablum.

    But where have you been hididng the past 7 years after he boosted all those former gamergaters, antifeminists, Lied to Canadian Parliament to prevent Trans People in Canada from having Housing and Jobs Protection; boosted all those rightwingers, and neofascists ( some who marched on Charlottesville ) . Etc. It just seems weird to jump on the Bandwagon this late knowing zero background.

    Adam Black 2/x

  5. In A Post Q, Post January6 era, a rightwing Populist who refuses to admit such thing as pedestrian as "Objective truth" exists; while softpedeling fascism as "accepting the social hierarchy"
    & Endorsing an Anti-Semitic Conspiracy straight from the Third Reich, Needs to be rejected wholesale.

    The truth is also , i havent read this book. I'm not here to put it down. I honestly believe if it was my first Petersen experience, >>>I WOULD LOVE IT.<<<<.

    So its easy for me to understand and sympathize that you do love it. Why wouldnt you? The criticisms here must seem like like nitpicking or assuming things not evidence.

    But I am also very Gullible, and a sucker for a sales pitch that flatters me. I Understand ( as does MorGoth ) that this is the opening pitch of a long Con. Its the spoonful of sugar that makes the poison easier to go down. < and that Poison is later hid behind some of the densest obtuseness Walls of impenetrable prose outside Hegel > .

    This is his shield of deniability, so any claim about Petersens can be claimed to be "OUT OF CONTEXT" .

    Adam Black 3/x

  6. Some things are actually simple:
    Objective truth is real.

    "Cultural Marxism" is a White Supremacist recycled antisemetic conspiracy from the Third Reich.

    Petersen is Nietzschean whos clothed himself in Christianity make starting a cult in the West go easier.

    Lobsters are NOT models of Human Cognition.

    Women DO actually have the right to chose their own partners, because sex slavery is wrong. < again., not hard things for 21st century philosopher > .

    and Finally Gay and Trans people actually do deserve Equal Rights, and Gay Marriage wont cause society to collapse into a soviet style dictatorship, FFS ( something he claimed 4-5 >>years after<< it was fully legal in the USA and Canada ).

    12 Rules is Not a bible. Nor an accurate representation of Petersen's beliefs, styles, Intent nor religious and political projects . Its a vast sales pitch to accept him as Thought Leader, < cult leader > Ones whos own thoughts cant be easily criticized back. For that you will need His Lectures and courses, and many youtube videos.

    Adam Black 4/x


  7. Petersen is a hysteric, ( wait ) who did an amazing Job for a decade disguising this fact by positioning himself as a reasonable sensitive academic of faith; while standing next to People who seem MUCH Crazier than he ( merely )reacting to the implications or consequences of what he saying.

    He is A self Portrait of "THE Reasonable Man" perhaps, The >>MOST Reasonable<<< Of Men, put upon by a most unreasonable society. But the Mask has been dropped, and he is none of things.

    Thankfully enough of his words are public that we can see this.
    When he tells Sam Harris his version of Truth NEVER lets him admit bad things about himself or his life
    <"What if your wife was having an affair, would you say denying that is "True"? Sam Asked ( over and Over ) 'NO, I would not,(admit that fact )' Petersen screeched, that's "antilife" . >

    We can connect that to lies he later told about his wife having cancer and a nonexistent apple juice allergy ( as an excuse for his out of control Xanax addiction that lead to him being hospitalized under anesthesia in Russian Mental Hospitals for a year ).

    The harsh Truths & Academic Deep Dives Only Go one way, to reifying and reaffirming his preexisting Prejudices: thus misrepresenting both.
    < What Does Taoism actually say about the Yin? >

    Why expect anything more from a failed academic whos epistemology of truth is little but a License to Lie & Self Deal for personal profit?

    If Readers seemingly unfairly judge or malign you ( even want nothing to do with you further ) as taking sides in a Far Right or Neo fascist political Project , for merely liking a deep self help book... I'm sorry to say, its because you have.

    I can also extend the Principal of maximum charity to you, and allow it as unknowing. But Like MorgOth , I can not go back to the world of 2015 or 14 and pretend like none of those events happened, and where Petersens Place was.

    I dont believe in Disposability Culture. I only discovered your blog randomly TODAY from an unrelated search.

    But at the same time, I cant wait That long to see if you can survive the many tempting corrupting's poisons soft sold over time by the far right. Especially by one of its Chief Propagandists. I've already lost too WAY many friends to that Propaganda project last decade.

    I know what I wrote here is a Little more outrageous, and a little more salacious than MorOth.

    I want you to FACT CHECK ME. ( For me to add footonotes notes to this verifying every claim with direct sources from petersen would take another 2-3 hours. and Ive already written 2hours when i meant to write 15 mins; loosely verifying EVERYTHING Morg0Th said while adding some of the "research" he left out.
    < a frustrating fact when I previously had G+ Posts on all of them! Remember that, and Please archive your posts for the Day Google deletes Blogspot too !!>

    Ps: Crime & punishment, excellent Book.

    For a fair Yet absurdist & wildly entertaining exposition and counterpoint of 12 Rules for Life,
    I humbly offer Counterpoints Video essay:

    Adam Black 5/x

  8. Since you wanted the Far Reich Cultural Marxism Conspiracy theory explained

    < loosely you have to believe the entire fields of sociology , anthropology, semiotics are secretly Jewish Conspiracies to destroy the West. Straight up Nazi shit, literally made up by the Nazis.


    in Conclusion

    Thus, rock'n'roll, 1960s counterculture, the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, homosexuality,[3] modern feminism, and, in general, all the "decay" in the West since the 1950s are allegedly products of the Frankfurt School.[4] It's also the work of the Jews.

    The conspiracist usage originated in Nazi Germany, where Kulturbolschewismus ("Cultural Bolshevism") was used to abuse political opponents. In particular, Jews purportedly were secretly orchestrating the spread of Communism (Jewish BolshevismWikipedia) as well as promoting sexual & gender permissiveness ("sexual Bolshevism").[7]

    If anyone rants about "Cultural Marxists taking over culture!", feel free to remind them that they're spouting literal Nazi propaganda updated for the modern era.

    1. Man, you've got my empathy meter ticking. I wish you the best of luck.