In defence of Jordan Peterson, sort of

14

There’s been lot of talk here lately about Professor Jordan Peterson, and when I say talk I mean repeated criticism. Some of it has been valid in my opinion, some of it has been a little off the wall. I need to respond because while some are valid to a point, others are just plain untrue.

It started with an Adam Piggot article accusing Peterson of a number of things (the Professor even tweeted it out himself).

Including the claim Peterson is an elaborate ruse to turn people into progressives. This wild accusation is made without evidence, so as such I can dismiss it without evidence. It’s completely false based on my assessment of his work.

Peterson is a liberal in the classical sense. He was a socialist in his younger years but, like many fooled youths, he woke up. Until there is solid evidence to prove otherwise there is no reason to doubt him.

One criticism in this article is that he gives women a “free pass” while telling men to take all responsibility for their actions.

This is not true at all; in fact he’s been quite critical of the choices commonly made by modern women. He consistently laments their desire to pursue a career and advises women to start a family instead. This is objectively good advice, in fact stay at home mothers are generally happier than those who work.

Not to mention the enjoyment they get later in life if they are lucky enough to have grandkids and the value they add to their children’s lives.

The criticism continues:

“He also consistently gives women a free pass. The burden of responsibility according to Peterson must always fall on men. He constantly tells men to “man up” and to take responsibility and become “good men”. Run a search with his name and those key words and a veritable avalanche of links, videos and interviews will pop up. But replace men with women and do a similar search and all you will find are the same links. Peterson is just about the perfect example of putting the pussy on the pedestal.”

There is a reason advice for men and women is different, it’s because men and women are different. A man doesn’t just become a “man”, he needs to earn the title; a woman becomes a woman simply by reaching maturity. Men need to “man up” not least because men have been bullied by feminist rubbish for decades. The very concept of “toxic masculinity” has beaten many men into submission and shame. Men need to “man up” because that’s how you become a man!

How are boys supposed to fight waves of rabid jihadi suicide rapists and their pink haired soy slaves if they can’t even stand up to the simple troubles of life? Their genes are doomed regardless.

Telling women they’d be happier at home taking care of children is essentially the same as telling men to man up. He’s telling women to be more feminine and he’s telling men to be more masculine. There is nothing at all wrong with this advice. It is not “beta,” it is the very opposite in fact.

As for this claim:

“He married a woman that he first met when he was 7 years old and whom he “instantly fell in love with” and whom he then pussy worshipped until she finally married him.”

This is classic “zomg you leik didn’t nail 100 chix in yo life? Gawd that’s leik totes lame bro.” Another way of framing this is: Jordan Peterson has been in a loving and monogamous relationship for essentially his entire life. He’s raised children with the love of his life, he’s a success in every sense.

Some might look at him and scoff, I look with admiration. I wish I had that, to each their own I guess.

The final criticism in this article I wish to address is:

“Another thing that I have noticed in his discussions and speeches, and particularly in the Q&A sessions, is that he constantly skirts around the subject of biological reality.”

This is false, in fact it’s so untrue it’s almost laughable. Not only did he come down firmly on the side of James Damore, who was fired for explaining biological facts, but he’s even touched on race, genetics and IQ. Then there’s the infamous lobster interview where he literally says we share the biology of a lobster that determines our place in the social hierarchy.

Peterson is a deliberate man who does all he can to not say things that are demonstrably incorrect. I suspect this criticism stems from the fact that Jordan doesn’t say the “right” things about biology or should I say the “alt-right” things about biology?

This brings me to the next chapter. David Hilton made an excellent video discussing Peterson’s work.

Hilton highlights where he believes Peterson fails, race. Peterson has certainly been critical of the alt-right and their obsession with race based identity politics, however he has pointed out the inevitability of Nationalism several times in a generally positive light.

I believe Jordan is reluctant to discuss this issue as social conditioning has made it taboo to in many ways. He is a boomer after all. I don’t see his reluctance as some conspiracy to stop people “taking the red-pill”. I see it as more a conditioned avoidance mixed with his desire to be deliberate with his words. While unfortunate, it doesn’t invalidate his vast body of excellent work.

It is a fair criticism to highlight Peterson’s reluctance to discuss race when it comes to nationalism and culture. While he is willing to discuss biology in many areas, biological influences on culture are something he seems less willing to acknowledge. It’s interesting because when he discusses Nationalism he points out it’s the collective identity people are attracted to. However, he seems unwilling to allow a racial identity to take prominence, or even suggest it might be a major factor in culture.

This is a mistake especially given he’s willing to discuss the issue of race and IQ as mentioned. If genes determine IQ why can’t they determine culture and values? What is race, if not genetic?

We know for a fact race correlates to crime in the US. You are far more likely to be shot by a black person than a white person, especially if you are black, even controlling for wealth. Asians, on the other hand, are far less likely to kill than either black or white people.

Jordan argues the way to find life’s meaning is to do what’s best for yourself, then your immediate family and finally the wider community. What is race if not your wider genetic family?

From a purely evolutionary standpoint this makes sense. The story of life is the story of genes, where successful genes pass on to the next generation and unsuccessful genes die. From the individual’s perspective the best-case scenario is they pass their own genes directly to the next generation. The next best case is their siblings pass on their genes, followed by cousins, then second cousins and so on. As we share more genes with those in our own race it makes biological sense for us to feel a stronger connection to those who share it.

Does this mean other races are inherently less valuable in the eyes of God? Should we treat others as inferior simply because they don’t share our race? Certainly not, all human beings are equal in the eyes of God and all citizens should be equal in the eyes of the law regardless of heritage. God loves all his children and we are all the children of God.

What it means is there is almost certainly a genetic component to culture and values just as there is a genetic component to intelligence, height and artistic talent (I am unsure if there is a genetic component to being a Melbourne supporter, if so it is certainly inferior, kek). This should be obvious but Marxist propaganda has been so pervasive for so long that we’ve been shamed into ignoring this fact.

In the USA, White people are far more likely to vote conservative than most other races. I am unable to find race based polling for Australia but I suspect it would show similar results. I’d also wager East Asians vote conservatives in a similar manner due to their generally higher IQ. In fact, evidence suggests a large component of culture and values is IQ and, as we know, IQ is genetic and correlates to race. This is clear evidence that race influences culture, albeit indirectly.

Does this mean race is the most important factor in determining the values and direction of a society? Maybe, but what’s certain is it’s a factor. Does this mean individuals of different races cannot share the same values? No, it certainly doesn’t. There are plenty of Indians and Asians who’s ideas, mannerisms and values are entirely Australian and I have met more than my fair share of White middle class Marxist clowns I never wish to smell again.

Race is a general category placed on individuals with certain genetic characteristics. It’s important to never confuse general arguments with absolutes. I also reject the idea that our nation should exclude people from ever participating simply because they don’t share our race. If someone talks, thinks and votes like me his race is ultimately irrelevant to me.

We cannot ignore other factors either. The children of mixed parents tend to be taller, smarter and better looking (as far as I can tell). Genetic diversity is good for a tribe, it reduces inherited diseases and makes it genetically stronger overall. I reject the idea that this is “breeding out” whiteness, it’s just not true. What matters from a biological perspective is that we pass on our genes and create children who are more likely to pass on theirs and so on.

Even White people with Aboriginal blood consider themselves Aboriginal in many cases, although this could be much to do with the current fashion.

The problem our nation has, as I see it, is not that people with different ethnicities are immigrating here. It’s the sheer volume of arrivals from entirely different, often hostile, cultures and the complete lack of expectation they assimilate and become truly Australian. Multiculturalism and culturally relativistic Marxism is the threat, not other ethnicities.

We no longer expect our new arrivals to become Australian in every way. Then, when a brave soul dares demand they speak English, Leftists howl their outrage. Many people who come here even live off the taxpayer teat and openly despise our way of life.

If we simply ended the path to citizenship or made it far more difficult to obtain, then required full assimilation, perhaps front line grunt military service, we’d resolve many issues. If we removed the rights of any non-citizen to any welfare most of the problem of displacement would end. The only immigrants remaining would be ones who add value to our lives and desire to become Australian to the core.

Welfare, more specifically the massive taxatation (ie extortion) it requires, is destroying White birth rates around the globe (Japan too). It’s not “wealth and affluence” as some suggest, it’s the forced redistribution of resources from the productive to the non-productive. Given what I’ve explained about IQ you can join the dots. Removing all welfare would solve most problems we face very quickly. Give the role of charity back to the church and the family and let society sort itself accordingly.

I believe ethno-nationalists have the argument backwards. If we simply set stringent value standards for permanent migration most immigrants who ultimately become citizens will likely be White anyway. We’d also stop Islam dead in it’s tracks as it is completely incompatible with Western values.

If we only allowed citizenship to those born here to at least one citizen parent, it would put a further brake on the flood. We would retain all the benefits of remaining predominantly European while allowing high value individuals of other cultures to strengthen us rather than overwhelm us.

Jordan Peterson fails to grasp the full picture of the problems facing the West. The threat is existential and unless we discuss race we will never get the full picture, nor will we find the correct solution.

The last criticism I want to bring up was not on XYZ. Vox Day recently appeared on the Alex Jones Show and made some truly wild attacks on the man. There is enough ridiculous content there that I could make a full response video, and may one day. For now, I want to highlight one claim: That Jordan Peterson is not a Christian.

This is ridiculous given the fact that he’s done an entire lecture series explaining that the bible is right, says he believes in God albeit in his own way, and also says he’s a Christian. No he’s not a traditional Christian, but he lives in a Christian way, essentially believes there is a God and says Christianity is right. He is a Christian the same way I am a Christian.

One of the things I’ve noticed about his critics is the desire to lie about him. If you are going to lie it would be well advised to not make them so obvious and don’t start a purity spiral, it’s a bad look.

We are at war but we are not at war with other ethnic groups, nor are we at war with classical liberalism. We are at war with White middle-class taxpayer funded Marxists who hate everything about themselves and us. We are at war with brainwashed, demon spawn snowflakes who infest HR departments, bureaucracies and the media. They are self-loathing and want to destroy all that makes our civilisation great. They hate White people because White people made Capitalism and White people turned a small Middle-Eastern Jewish sect into a world powerhouse and the basis of Western Culture.

The Left hate capitalism but they hate Christianity far more and they hate biological facts most of all.

Believe what you like about Peterson but he is completely against Marxism in all it’s forms. He argues against it brilliantly and does so while encouraging people to find true meaning in their lives. Not to mention his promotional analysis of the bible, his lectures allow sceptical people to believe again. He is not the enemy, Marxists are the enemy. Marxists have been the enemy since the bearded bludger dreamt of a world where he never had to work while snoozing on Friedrich Engels’ couch. Marxists hate Jordan Peterson, they hate him because he exposes them and highlights the threat they represent.

Challenge his ideas all you like but don’t for a second think he is our enemy, because it is demonstrably not true. At least find solid evidence to back up your accusations. Being wrong about one thing doesn’t mean you are wrong about everything!

He’s not the messiah, nor is he a naughty boy. He’s Jordan Peterson, the bad boy professor.

  • Repeal fake marriage

    Loved reading through this Matty. An excellent response that has enlightened me throughout the current debate about JP on XYZ.

  • Razorback

    10/10…go to the top of the class

  • Earl Conner

    Very well argued and written Matty. Not only is Peterson “completely against Marxism in all it’s forms”, he actually had the balls to use the term in his interviews with the Australian MSM. Even Richard Spencer would have to give him props for that.

  • Craig

    If Peterson was a bad boy, New York Times wouldn’t be promoting him. He’s nothing but a cuck that is a stepping stone to the alt-right or far right or ethno nationalism.

    The “Dark Web Enlightenment” is nothing but a cork in a bottle, those of us will keep shaking it till it explodes out of our way.

  • Craig

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

    Looks like we’re at the fight you stage.

  • *sighs, puts popcorn back in larder*

    *heads over to alrightdotcom to antagonise lexie*

  • Craig

    Lols Hey matty JP is now far right cause he’s not afraid to talk about Jews, apparently classical Liberal is now code for alt-right neo-Nazi’s. hahaha

    Couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried, yet Jewsih journalists in the MSM do it for some strange reason. Why do you think that is?

    • When the Left call you a “far-right neo-Nazi” what they really mean is “I can’t argue against you but I don’t like your views either.”

      It’s especially strange given Nazi’s were actually Left wing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-_TC5vrOAM

      • Jai_Normosone

        Wait.. who are you??? Did I write this and forget about it?
        I’m looking at some of your statements and thinking that I’ve been the lone voice for so long that nobody else could think like I do, so I must have written it.
        Then again, I am totally shit at making videos, so it must not be me 🙂

  • Craig

    Well Matty looks like Vox was right, Peterson is a globalist shill who writes for the UN sustainable governance baloney, as recently as 2013-15. He’s all for mass mud immigration and smoothing over the problems, in other words steering young white men away from nationalism and accepting our countries submergence into the slums of equality and climate change taxation wealth transfers. You been fooled by a charlatan mate.

    Are you a globalist too Matty?

    Your “conservative” economic migrants of Indian and Chinese extraction have to go back. In fact they can take the white Marxist traitors with them.

    In another 10 years our health system will be just like that of the UK fooked. Arn’t we so lucky.

    • You have a link to the actual source and not Vox Day saying so?

      I find his views on immigration to be quite reasonable: https://youtu.be/Q7pv3B7Rh3Q

      I side with the conservatives on immigration but again, to say Pererson is the enemy is just wrong.

      • Craig

        He freely admits it at 01:09, from his mouth to your ears.

        There’s much more, you can find it if you really want to. Maybe you don’t want to?

        Yeah, conservatives suck on mass immigration it’s why they’ll be remembered as cuckservatives.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd9llDYmABU

  • Jai_Normosone

    Matty,

    Another excellent piece.

    Reading through this, I get the feeling that there is a bit of a writer-war happening behind the scenes but, as I don’t read everything on this site, I cannot be overly certain.

    I say below that I must have written this but don’t remember writing them because they are very close to what I’ve been sprouting for years and have not heard anyone else speak in the same way…
    “There is a reason advice for men and women is different, it’s because men and women are different. A man doesn’t just become a “man”, he needs to earn the title; a woman becomes a woman simply by reaching maturity. Men need to “man up” not least because men have been bullied by feminist rubbish for decades. The very concept of “toxic masculinity” has beaten many men into submission and shame. Men need to “man up” because that’s how you become a man!”
    Unfortunately I have needed to alter my reasoning for a young female coming of age as many become ‘women’ but very few seem to become a ‘lady’ (which, as you would be aware that since ‘man’ derives from ‘gentleman’, so must ‘lady’ be the sexual equivalent of a woman gaining some of the social graces and etiquette that goes with it.
    Quite a few women have been told by me that they have NOT gained the wisdom of the ages because someone put their ankles behind their ears while they were roaring drunk one night and managed to drop an ongoing debt to society. A great number of females seem to believe that their opinions cannot be questioned because they grew a human from a load that should have been swallowed.

    I’m hoping that one day I will work out what the ‘alt-‘ prefix on right and left means… sounds like bullshit to me and comes from someone that recognises that they are on that side of the fence but don’t want to outwardly appear that way – nor appear to be in favour of the other side – so they go sideways and give it a different name in the hopes that someone will be fooled.

    If what you say about JP is all 100% correct, then I am inclined to wonder how he managed to attain the title of “professor” when learning institutions reward Marxist thinking and punish anyone ever remotely daring to be conservative (example: Mike S Adams).