In recent years, most names associated with the so-called Intellectual Dark Web have all but tarnished in their brands, with the exception of Joe Rogan, who functioned as a curator for conversations denied by mainstream media. Among them included Sam Harris, a rabid atheist; James Lindsay, an atheist who subverts the church; and Jordan Peterson, a renowned psychologist famous for his self-help content geared towards men. It is no secret that Peterson’s brand has suffered these past several years, particularly after his signing with the Daily Wire. This is something even casual, nonpolitical observers have recognized, where many people who liked his content ask the question, what happened to Peterson?
Although the prominence of Peterson was largely due to taking minimal stands regarding free speech and speaking bare minimum talking points on transgenderism, Peterson has fashioned himself a wiseman guru who dresses in eccentric suits who philosophizes about esoteric, ancient gods while also branding himself as a bible teacher, who often employs Jungian architypes to interpret Scripture. During an interview with Elon Musk, he attempts to flex on the world’s richest man about Babylonian paganism rather than substantive subjects. Back in March, he teamed up with an ADL partner research firm to propagandize the phrase “Christ is King” as hate-speech, to which many people have taken notice of certain patterns regarding Peterson since signing with Daily Wire.
After a series of controversial interviews with the likes of Darryl Cooper, Ian Carroll, Dave Smith, and others who would be Noticers, Rogan brought back Peterson, who proceeded to psychologize and pathologize those on the right who notice patterns about Jews.
On Rogan, Peterson claims to have been tracking psychopathic behaviors on the right for four years, which he correlates with the rise in antisemitism. This also correlates with his time at Daily Wire. Early on, he attributes it to the envy of Jews being a successful minority, which is a strawman when reconciled with actual arguments from the right-wing noticers who call out the degeneracy, multiculturalism, and wars promoted by Jewish interests.
What is interesting is Peterson’s description of these “narcissistic psychopaths” whose personalities he can diagnose when they are anonymous:
The problem is that 4 to 5% of the population, something like that is Cluster B. That’s the DSM-5 terms histrionic, narcissistic, antisocial, psychopathic, and they have dark tetrad traits. They’re Machiavellian. They’re sadistic. That’s about 4%. OK. So the question is, how do these people maneuver? And the answer is they go to where the power is and they adopt those ideas, and they put themselves even on the forefront of. But the ideas are completely irrelevant, right? All they’re doing is they’re the Pharisees. They’re the modern version of the Pharisees. They’re the people who use God’s name in vain, right as they proclaim moral virtue doesn’t matter whether it’s right or left, or Christian or Jewish, or Islam.
Peterson appeals to the Dark Triad, which was a concept published in 2002 by Delroy Paulhus and Kevin M. Williams, which seeks to distinguish Narcissism, Psychopathy, and Machiavellianism into three distinct categories on a spectrum. Sadism is added to the spectrum, forming a tetrad. The common critique of this breakdown is that these personality traits often overlap so they are not distinct, creating differing labels for the same thing. As an aside, the use of Dark Triad is common in “Redpill” circles where they say that women are more attracted to men who elicit these qualities (bad boys) as opposed to the “betas” that do not.
What is especially interesting is his claim that the Pharisees were narcissistic psychopaths, which Peterson also made on Fox News with Sean Hannity, where he appealed to his fake ADL-sponsored study. While there are many things that might be ascribed to the Jewish leaders who killed Christ, they are not demonstrably psychopathic. If anything, they were greedy men who despised Christ for disrupting their Temple racket and challenging their egos. The Sadducees were especially naturalistic, denying the resurrection of the dead, as they held control over the Temple while the Pharisees were more influential among the people. The latter were more litigious and were called out for how they invented loopholes to avoid obedience to the law.
It is an improper lens to interpret pathology or modern psychology into Scripture. The Pharisees primarily viewed Christ as competition that was a disruption to their financial machine and popular influence. Thus, their actions were motivated towards preserving their self-interests, largely indifferent to Christ’s messianic claims. To say that this behavioral pattern exists in only 4-5% of people who exhibit dark tetrad traits is farcical. Media, politics, and evangelical institutions would be rife with dark tetrad traits if this were true, but many such people have no talents outside their given industry and are rather unimpressive otherwise, which is not Dark Triad/Tetrad. They are merely gatekeeping their sphere of influence. Contrary to the words of Brian Auten, it was the incompetence and lack of “Machiavellian” instincts which gave rise to the Intellectual/Evangelical dark webs in the first place. President Trump usurped the GOP apparatus because his competition was thoroughly unimpressive, while the Democrats were forced to run Kamala Harris in 2024, a woman who entered politics via sexual favors. Compare the theologians, journalists, and politicians of today to those of generations past, and there is a stark difference. The class of today is too incompetent to be the dark triad.
Peterson’s F-Scale
Since the aftermath of the Second World War, there has been a constant effort to pathologize any opposition as possessing a personality defect. Most famously, The Authoritarian Personality (1950), which was sponsored by the American Jewish Committee, created the F-scale (F for Fascist) to measure one’s authoritarian personality, which predisposes one to fascism. The book used Freudian psychology to diagnose “fascism” as having a defective psycho-sexual development, like anger towards parents or repressed homosexuality.
The F-Scale uses a series of statements to assess people’s disposition towards fascism. Statements like “obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn” wherein an affirmative result in a worse score. It was Calvin who wrote that “piety towards parents is the mother of all virtues,” which makes him, and by extension, pre-modern men, fascists according to the F-Scale. While the book’s popularity has fluctuated over the years, the notion of pathologizing the political right has been constant, and was seen with mainstream media diagnosing the rise of Trump. Even the notion that authoritarianism is bad is antithetical to human history, as mass democracy is an aberration and is far more intrusive into everyday lives when compared to the average medieval monarch.
Peterson’s F-Scale is being devised to diagnose the online anons, and his conclusions will hardly be different from his predecessors as he will attribute envy, fatherlessness, anger, and other emotions to those who notice the “Jewish question.” By appealing to the dark tetrad, he claims that they are merely gravitating towards “noticing” because that is where they can ascend to power, not out of conviction or the truth of the underlying claims. This allows Peterson to sidestep whether there is any veracity to the question. It matters not whether the claim is true, but they are wrong because they are narcissists and psychopaths. They are wrong because they are bad people.
The use of psychobabble to pathologize opposition is a relatively modern phenomenon, beginning with the popularization of Freud and escalating in the post-WW2 period. Psychological terms have a unique way of entering the zeitgeist, as Freudian terms like libido are common vernacular, or the rise of “empathy” since the 1960s. For some, the knowledge of these terms gives a veneer of intellectualism that allows one to “diagnose” those around them while at scale. The emphasis on “empathy” or the psychologizing of “authoritarianism” leads to a more effeminized and malleable society, one susceptible to tyranny. Naturally, any approach that pathologizes men for favoring strongmen or authority structures will functionally discourage masculine drive, leading to a breakdown of social order and preventing men from rising against unvirtuous behaviors. Through psychology, the longhouse is created and enforced. By pathologizing opposition as racists, homophobes, antisemites, sexists, and other terms, the post-war consensus is maintained.
Conclusion
Peterson is attempting to create his own theory in line with The Authoritarian Personality to pathologize those on the right who notice patterns in Jewish behaviors, while unironically being sponsored by the ADL and Daily Wire to these ends. His articulation is hardly unique, as his claims of envy are identical to Doug Wilson’s. The danger comes from his credentialism, whereby he is weaponizing his career as a psychologist to give authority to his words. Ultimately, Peterson’s rise correlated with his brand of helping men build themselves up, while his downfall stemmed from tearing down the men who had risen to the occasion.
Powered by RedCircle
