A War Brews on the Right: Jordan Peterson’s Rogan Appearance Sparks Debate on Psychopaths, Grifters, and “Christ is King”
We’re seeing some interesting dynamics play out in the conservative sphere lately. There seems to be a growing rift, driven in part by what appears to be a push from either self-proclaimed or perhaps unwittingly identified neoconservatives. Infighting like this is something the right often struggles with; while it can make things stronger by airing issues, it often makes it weaker overall.
A recent appearance by Jordan Peterson on Joe Rogan has really stirred the pot and left a lot of people pretty upset. Peterson weighed in on a few key issues, notably addressing people using the phrase “Christ is King” on social media. He’s apparently working on a new theory about political psychopathology.
According to Peterson, roughly 4 to 5% of the population exhibit what are called Cluster B traits under the DSM-5, such as being histrionic, narcissistic, antisocial, or psychopathic. They might also have what’s known as the “dark tetrad” traits, meaning they’re Machiavellian or sadistic. Peterson suggests these individuals, whom he sometimes refers to as psychopathic types, psychopathic parasites, or wolves in sheep’s clothing, are like the modern version of the Pharisees. Their behavior is parasitic and predatory.
Their strategy? They seek out places where there is power or value and look for belief systems or groups they can infiltrate. They adopt the ideas of that group, putting themselves at the forefront. However, Peterson argues the ideas themselves are completely irrelevant to these individuals. They simply use them as false weapons to advance their own narcissistic advantage. Their presence is the “death of everything”. This is a problem the right is increasingly facing, much like the left did when they held power. Peterson describes these people as those who use God’s name in vain. They are driven by a sense of entitlement and will seek unwarranted vengeance.
Peterson and a group he’s affiliated with did a report specifically on the use of “Christ as King”. The report looked at it as a “manipulative strategy by bad actors hypothetically on the right”. However, Peterson is quick to point out that they identified similar types on the left as well. He emphasizes that this dynamic isn’t primarily political; it’s about these psychopathic, narcissistic types using beliefs as “surface camouflage” to elevate their “moral status”.
One issue that came up and where we have a slightly different take is the topic of anonymity online. Peterson seems to have a perspective on online anonymity that he describes as a “weird boomer take”. He believes that virtualization and online anonymity have enabled these psychopaths. He argues that our evolved strategies for dealing with such individuals don’t work well online, allowing them to perform terrible manipulations, find like-minded people, and escape reputational consequences. Anonymity, in his view, helps these types organize and hide more effectively.
Now, to be clear, we agree with Jordan Peterson that there are absolutely sociopath grifters on both sides. And we also agree with his warning that the right needs to draw clear lines against grifters and nonsense, otherwise, it risks imploding just like the left did with wokeism.
However, we feel Peterson is perhaps a little misguided on some points. Regarding the “Christ is King” phrase, while yes, there are certainly people who use it online to troll – you wouldn’t be intellectually honest if you didn’t acknowledge that happens – the statement itself is not inherently inflammatory, and saying it doesn’t automatically make you a psychopath.
On the anonymity point, we disagree that just because someone uses an anonymous account means they are trolling or hiding because they fear backlash. Some people simply prefer anonymity, and there isn’t anything inherently wrong with that. It doesn’t mean they wouldn’t say the exact same things in real life.
Interestingly, there has been significant criticism directed back at Peterson regarding his own behavior and claims. Critics argue that accusing political opponents of being mentally ill is a tactic straight out of the Soviet playbook. They’ve pointed to past actions, like his claim in 2016/2017 that he risked arrest over pronouns, which they call objectively a lie. There are also questions about his past suggestion that Brett Kavanaugh should resign after confirmation for a “moral victory”, and his explanation for his benzodiazepine addiction, with critics noting that every psychologist knows those drugs are habit-forming. Critics have also called him a “vain peacock,” pointing to his custom suits, makeup use, and obsession with his image, suggesting it’s ironic for him to label others as mentally ill while he himself can get emotional. Furthermore, it’s noted that he took the COVID vaccine and encouraged others, told the trucker convoy to go home, and has partnered with groups that critics claim have tried to censor people saying “Christ is King” and COVID vaccine critics. Some even point out the irony that his own boss at the Daily Wire could potentially fit his description of a “psychopath cloaking him in right-wing for narcissistic benefit”. It seems his experiences with internet trolls may have clouded some of his judgment.
This brewing fight on the right is happening. While some predict a simple split between a pro-Israel mainstream right and a dissident right critical of Israel and Jewish supremacy, we think it’s likely to be more complex than that. We personally don’t think about Israel much, though we agree they should defend themselves.
Ultimately, we think this internal struggle on the right is a good thing. It’s healthy to expose grifters and fight against them. We just believe Jordan Peterson is a bit off the mark in applying his theory too broadly in this instance.
