Review of Jordan B. Peterson: 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. (2018)

Feeble Failure, Despite Intense Promotional Effort. Just Another Jew-Diverted Evasion from real Human Psychology.

5 Years Later. Note in May 2023: Peterson is still in Youtube, which of course is severely Jewish-controlled, generally in short videos which don't stretch Youtubers' low attention and intelligence spans.
I noted a Peterson video on 'psychopathy' with his warnings to avoid them, and not be taken in by them. When Jews from eastern Europe flooded west from about 1880, psychologists, to their surprise, found these people had no hesitation about committing some types of crime. The psychologists reported it, but, in accordance with the habits of the time, they did not identify them as Jews. To this day, the identification of 'Jack the Ripper' as a Russian Jew is as taboo as mentioning Dr Harold Shipman as a Jew.
The vast effects of Jews are utterly outside his purview: nothing on slaughters in Russia and other territories, although types like Yagoda must count as some of the biggest 'psychopaths' who ever lived. Even their names are obscure, even now.
Peterson summons his acting skills and memorised seeches to warn about people with actual deliberate malignancy in their attitude, but says nothing about the Talmud (which insists on that attitude to goyim). Nor does he note that it's impossible that malignancy could apply to all people in psychopaths' orbits, since they would have no surviving families or children. Peterson says nothing on people like the Sacklers, spreading addictions, or people like Kissinger, spreading murder, presumably to get control of central banks around the world. Frankly, he's a worthless sabbath goy, crypto-Jew, or Jew—even if he had something useful to say about the destructiveness of Jews, he would not say it.

Note in March 2023: Jordan Peterson is clearly just another Soros-funded propagandist.
He seems to be approaching his expiry date at last. ...

... I've just watched a video of him put onto Youtube, where of course his type is allowed, unlike better people. He talked about online comments in websites, and said he thinks commenters who use their own names should be posted together as a group, while nicknamed commenters should be a separate group, which Peterson thinks are trolls and bigots—and he says they do immense harm.
Peterson doesn't distinguish serious people, like me, from Jew-funded types like himself. I'd guess that he means by 'immense harm' comments by people who point to Jewish lies, for example on the 'Holocaust'. Jew-funded types often use real-ish names, typically changed from Jewish names from Germany, Poland, or Russia. But there can be serious penalties against people who understand Jews and who use their real names unless they have some independence, like me, with a pension. Of course Peterson doesn't discuss that possibility.
It has to be said that many sites have a terrible jumble of commenters. The Occidental Observer has low-grade stuff, and long dull stuff, and many bits of the Jewish propaganda opus, mingling with the unheard censored ghosts.

Peterson has an interesting attitude to competence, which he often deploys against women. The TV female commentariat typically know nothing about technology—they expect hireling males to deal with all that stuff. Peterson therefore has a good opportunity against yappy women. But or course men can be competent, and do harm. Peterson is careful to never say anything Jew-relevant, and avoids Jew mass murder in the USSR, China—and the USA and its puppets.
I think Peterson's time with people like Soros has warped him irretrievably: what power! What money! What competence! What intellect! Wow!—Leaving his knowledge of Jew rubbish cauterised from his brain. He avoids all mention of them, going so far as to praise Jung (and avoid Freud &c) and Dostoievsky. He praises 'nuclear power', which he thinks leaves no footprint! He even believes the BS about evil Adolf.
Peterson never analyses the uses to which competence is put. Jews have proved competent in printing junk money, in using the Kahal system against non-Jews, in spreading the most fantastic crap—just think of the 'Holy Bible', and, if you'd heard of it, the 'Talmud'. The USA and Canada and Europe have imported millions of aliens with no electoral permission—or their Jews and their puppets have.

RW 31 May 2023/ 22 March 2023

2018 was the peak of promotional efforts for Jordan Peterson. The book promotion for 'the multi-million copy bestseller' was given to Penguin Books; I don't know if there were translation rights, but I doubt they could have been important, since they'd tread on local promotees. (I've attempted a summary of Penguin as propagandists here). Peterson is a psychologist, not a psychiatrist—these have medical education or 'training'.

Not counting numerous small names, Freud was the first very famous name in Jewish psychology, promoted by 'cohencidence' by Jewish-owned outlets. But there were many more: Erich Fromm, Hans Eysenck, Milgram, Zimbardo, Basil Bernstein, Boas the race man, Eric Berne, Erving Goffman, probably R D Laing, and many more: these were all a long time ago, mostly dating from the Jewish victory in the Second World War.

Four years after publication I found a cheap 'second hand' (British expression for something 'used'!) copy of 12 Rules for more or less nothing, and thought I might do a quick review—which I've error-checked six months later!.

I relocated some fragments on my site:–

2016 Prof Jordan Peterson, Toronto University, Canada, psychology department seems to be under grooming as a fake activist intellectual. He claims to have helped many people under appalling stresses—such as losing jobs, not (of course) being bombed or raped or a Palestinian. His supposed activism is related to the ridiculous proliferation of supposed sexual types. The reality is he is a Jew avoider, and may well think he's a Jew himself, judging from various signs, including the simple fact he's at Toronto. He has no knowledge of science, and quotes the line that scientists purely search for truth. He "fully equates Marxism with Nazism", taking on all the Jewish lies on the Holohoax, Nanking fraud [a reference to a propaganda book attributed to Iris Chang, also Penguin, 1997], etc. He is reduced to saying that Nietzsche is a deep and great writer, with great density in his books, but cannot explain what Nietzsche said. Recycling old writers is quite common with such people, as they are known to have once been widely-quoted, and the only effort needed is a few trips to the library: he sounds a bit like R D Laing. He knows nothing about 9/11 and other modern Jewish frauds. He thinks the "full spectrum of political beliefs" runs from "conservatism to liberalism.! Just someone to watch; my impression was he's posing as radical to get into the 'Alt-Right', an expression allegedly first used in 2008 by a Jew, Paul Gottfried, like that hair-dyed Jew-Greek homosexual. If you're interested, watch his videos; scripted?

2017 On the subject of the 'alt-right', a US coining which deliberately pretends that race concerns are 'right wing', I was interested to see that Peterson turned down a polite request for an online talk with 'Millennial Woes', possibly on the ground that Peterson is successful, and Millennial Woes isn't. My best guess is that Peterson is Jew-aware, or thinks he's Jewish, but keeps very quiet about his Jew knowledge; whereas 'Millennial Woes' seems to be totally unaware of Jewish issues—a precarious position for anyone concerned with forced nonwhite invasion into white, or once-white, countries. 'Millennial Woes' as a new (in late 2017) series of interviews with alt-right people, but only rather obscure ones. He may of course be a crypto-Jew himself, perhaps trying to change the views of his network mates. Or he may be anxious to preserve his income from Youtube, which of course would be at risk if he discussed Jews.

2018 seems to have been Jordan Peterson's peak. Allegedly an academic psychiatrist, often shown teaching a class obviously instructed to be mute, he was presented as opposition to the ridiculous Jew-promoted 'pronoun' issue. There's quite a funny staged video, out of doors (because of poor light?), where he replies to a ridiculous woman's ridiculous comment on 'Nazis'. He reminded me a bit of R D Laing, who liked peppering his talks with digressions on Dostoievsky, not Solzhenitsyn. Laing also discussed atrocities in the Vietnam War for Jews to take over Vietnamese assets. I actually feel a bit sorry for Peterson, who is not very skilled in the Jewish art of poker-faced lies, and whose voice gets shrill at difficult times. But at least he was the beneficiary of a book promotion, for example by the BBC. There's a laughable online video sequence of him, standing next to race maniac Soros. Peterson says "It's very hard to make a lot of money!" or words to that effect. Not very convincing in the presence of a money-printer. But, again, I think I detect dissatisfaction in the Jewish republic of Canada.

Part of the BBC book promotion process was a TV staged talk with a Jewess called Newman, which got a great deal of replays on I think Youtube, Jewish-run and extremely censorious. The ridiculous 'pronoun' claims, like the 'LGBT' rubbish, were designed to stoke up fake disputes, of which this was one. It would I suppose be of interest to know what the actual results of these campaigns in terms of sales really were, but there's no way to know.

I can't resist mentioning Milo Yiannopoulos; from my notes of Feb 2017. An amusing talker, with considerable backup from Jews on such questions as the percentage of women calling themselves 'Feminists', and facts about pay-rates by gender. A carefully-dressed homosexual half-Jew, his backup failed to inform him on Jew paper money, Jew funding of wars, etc. I guess his audience tired of his mercifully short accounts of sucking off blacks. He was sacked from some Jew 'news' source, possibly because he advocated pederasty—despite this being recommended by Jews.
Like Peterson, Yiannopoulus seems to have been rewarded with a book deal.

Peterson's book says he did the illustrations; these seem to be pen-and-ink, and photoreduced by a large margin, giving the impression of skilled draughtsmanship plus over-tiny line work. Most of his drawings include two children, older girl and younger boy, possibly his. Just thought I'd mention this.

His 12 Rules include (I won't list them all) Rule 1: Stand up straight with your shoulders back, Rule 6: Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world, Rule 7: Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient), Rule 8: Tell the truth—or, at least, don't lie, and Rule 10: Be precise in your speech.
There's also a CODA, largely on Biblical (or probably Jewish) clichés.

The foreword (by someone called Doidge) is interesting on such things as Peterson's house festooned with paintings or posters from the USSR, but essentially is a Jewish apologia. However, Doidge does say (without sources) that the USSR killed 100 M people, and he also accepts Jewish 'Holocaust' mythology, and it seems likely, despite what he says, that Peterson was a Jew. And it seems unlikely, a least to me, that Peterson was genuinely absorbed in soulful Russian novels. The index is weighted with Biblical and Jewish references.

Peterson's Overture is shorter, and a sort of Apologia, signed as 'Clinical Psychologist and Professor of Psychology' and in some contrast with the one-page biography at the very end of the book: ‘... frigid wastelands of Northern Alberta ... I have flown in ... a carbon fiber stunt plane, piloted a ... racing sailboat, been a ... dishwasher, gas jockey, bartender...
Peterson seems to have been greatly influenced by a website called Quora; with staggering ignorance of the powers behind websites, he wrote ‘on Quora, anyone can ask a question, of any sort—and anyone can answer. Readers upvote ... and downvote ... In this manner, the most useful answers rise to the top...’

I noticed, flicking through the book, Peterson discussing large families and reproductive success, at least over a few generations, since at any time breeders might be wiped out. His record-breaking mother was what he called a 'Holocaust survivor', who had many children and even more grandchildren. Peterson makes no comment on parasitism. He says in effect Genghis Khan was a male super-fatherer, though I think he's weak on the science of DNA, as individuals have so many alleles that after about 70 generations there would seem to be 2^(1/30) bits of Genghis DNA scattered about.
Looks like the natural impulse to feel you're impressing yourself on a female may not be right. NB see if you can find these two passages; I couldn't find them in the index.

His Rule 1 on posture is a reference to lobsters. Many psychologists start their work with animals: red feathers and robins; octopus vision; pecking chickens and pigeons; rats and mazes; heart-warming bird stories; pig behaviour and comfort; and (here) conflicts between lobsters illustrate the sort of thing. Dawkins did work with maggots.
His 'shoulders back' recommendation 'is to accept the terrible responsibility of life .. [it] means building the ark that protects the ark from the flood, guiding your people through the desert...' Well, maybe.

Rule 6: Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world is the shortest 'rule'. Discouragingly, it starts with the Sandy Hook fraud. He goes on to Goethe on Mephistopheles. (Elsewhere he quotes Milton on Satan—he doesn't seem aware that 'Satan' has a special place in Jewish 'sacred' texts - see Christopher Jon Bjerknes on this sort of thing—for example the insane bit where a not-yet-born twin reaches out to pull back the born twin, to ensure his birthright). Then we have Cain and Abel. Then Solzhenitsyn. All this is just badly-informed preaching.

Rule 7: Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient) is an oddly conventional chapter, consisting entirely of bits from the Bible (RSV), Greek writings, Russian novels: well-known passages. Peterson's interpretations are always conventional; one feels he checks what's written about them in some very ordinary American-Jew standard reference. Peterson seems to need to be told what is 'meaningful'. Does he get it right? Is it in fact the best policy? Is it unworkable in practice? I found this another unconvincing and irritating chapter. But it fills space.

Rule 8: Tell the truth—or, at least, don't lie has mixed messages: hospitalized mentally ill patients (Peterson seems to have no doubts of the Thomas Szasz type) and what to say to them; a highly drunk large neighbour, and what to say to him; a joke about 'Hell' which seemed to be leading to the USA, but is anti-Russian in fact. Peterson doesn't mention the Jewish policy of always lying if there's any sort of benefit. Nor does he do any analysis of the effect of lying vs truth-telling. There's no detectable attempt at serious analysis. Unlike most professions and activities, dealing with the mentally ill seems often to be left without assessment. No wonder it appeals to Jews.
There's a certain poignancy about his conversation with patients (which presumably are not verifiable in any way under confidentiality rules) in which he has to explain to some female schizophrenic that she can't join the group because they are student psychologists and she isn't. I can vaguely remember a US TV thing on patients, saying things like "Lord, forgive the crimes of the United States" as illustrations of mental illness. The pre-scientific Jewish crap puts Peterson into that class; if here ever is a negative USSR, no doubt he'd be incarcerated and his professorship revoked.

Rule 10: Be precise in your speech. Starts with discussing laptops, and their presumed obsolescence. It's not true they work just as well; newer ones are, or have been, faster, with larger storage, better screens, and so on. This chapter includes NASA and the moon and 9/11, neither with any understanding. It's just more rubbish.

Anyway, this is enough. My best guess is the book was made part of the Jewish lie factory because it makes unscientific phrases sound useful. I'd guess Peterson's patients, if he has any, find him comfortably useless if they're well-off, or uncomfortably useless otherwise.

I don't want to leave the impression that psychology is useless. There's the empirical side to it, which, if not scientific, at least has value, just as food had value before modern biochemistry and microscopy. Presumably some psychologists turn out to be better than others, through experience and learning. Whether their patients are allowed to know their record I'd guess seems unlikely.

Rae West big-lies.org Sept 17 2022. Corrections 14, 21 March 2023

Top of Page