The exposure of the real Jordan Peterson

25

My piece on Jordan Peterson got linked to by the great man himself. Let’s see how he examined my arguments and firmly rebutted them. After all, I am in the business of putting out ideas, a good part of which is to see whether or not I am on the right track; people’s reactions are a big part of my own learning curve.

Based on that I can now safely declare that I am right over the target.

Peterson responded with a stream of ad hominem slurs, the same slurs which are routinely used by SJWs and the prog left in general. In other words, he used the same tactics which supposedly he battles against on a regular basis. Let’s take apart his little tweet bit by bit.

He starts off with some Loony Tunes era nonsense which he misquotes. Don’t be fooled; this is a deliberate tactic. He is letting the rabbits know that he is on their side.

Next up he accuses me of being a misogynist. This is a very big red flag. Wasn’t Peterson supposed to be on the side of men? Isn’t that what most of the comments on my piece in support of Peterson were saying? And yet the minute he gets a bit of push-back he immediately labels me as a misogynist. Listen up people; he is signalling here. He is signaling his worthiness to all women everywhere. He is really on their side.

All of you who think that Peterson is on the side of men need this wake up call. Peterson doesn’t want you to be good at being men, he wants you to be good men. Good provider men for women everywhere. Good men who will do as they are told. Peterson is telling men to clean up their room? Give me a break. Our grandmothers were saying that. He’s not saying anything new, he’s just repackaged it in a brown cardigan.

Next he accused me of being antisemitic. This is genuinely news to me. I mean, I even posted a thread on the JQ stating my position on the subject as regards to the comments policy on this blog. But I suppose that merely linking to Vox Day is now considered to be antisemitic. How else can this accusation of hating the Jews be otherwise interpreted?

Peterson is making me guilty by association.

Oh golly gee whiz, Mary Sue – I thought that Peterson was against all that sort of stuff. I mean, that’s what he says, right?

Never listen to what they say, just watch what they do.

Finally he accused me of being right wing. So for all of you on the right side of politics, let alone the alt-right, is that clear enough for you now? Peterson considers that applying the label of right-winger to be an insult. How much clearer do you need it to be?

Does Peterson state some truths? Of course he does, but so what? He is not on our side. The cucks on the right are always so very desperate to ingratiate themselves with whatever enemy comes along who even glances in their direction. If they seem to share the values of the right then they are immediately embraced as the great savior. It happens time and time again. The last two speakers to tour Australia who got a huge reception from the right have been a Jewish homosexual who married a black man and this left wing Canadian psychology professor who wants men to be better providers. It’s pathetic.

Jordan Peterson is only angry at the left because he thinks that they have gone too far, not that they are wrong. He desires a return to the left of the early 1970s when apparently they believed in free speech. He’s not against using whatever ridiculous transsexual pronouns his students demand today; he’s just against being forced to do so by law. As Vox Day states in the comments in this post:

“A classic Canadian liberal is a Leftist. Peterson is not disillusioned with liberalism, he is afraid of the SJW extremists. He is a metaphorical Menshevik and the fact that he opposes the modern Bolsheviks does not mean that he is our side. He is not. He regards us as the enemy and he supports our enemies. He is to the Left of the cucks that most of you Peterson fans rightly despise. He gets virtually nothing right and he does not oppose the two biggest dangers to the West, immigration and feminism.”

Do not worship false prophets.

Peterson made a grave mistake with his tweet that attempted to mock me. He should have never responded to my article. By doing so in the way that he did he gave it immense credibility. It was a really stupid mistake, and a really dumb one at that. He has drawn back the curtain on his own lies and hypocrisy. Do not be disheartened if you really believed that he was the real deal. Be content that he has been exposed so easily and that you needn’t have wasted any more time.

This article was originally published at https://pushingrubberdownhill.com/, where Adam Piggott publishes regularly and brilliantly. You can purchase Adam’s books here.

  • McMansplainer

    Nice work, friend. It’s mild liberals like this Tony Robbins impersonator that create the conditions for their more militant brethren. Their values are essentially the same, the militants are just more consistent.

  • Repeal fake marriage

    Interesting!

  • W. Hunter

    Adam, your article on Peterson seems to have found the chink in his armour and the dagger is thrust deep.

    Peterson has recoiled and venomously revealed his true self.
    I have never had much time for Peterson, his snide,arrogant Tweet towards you confirms my suspicions of the man.

    False Prophet is an apt description.
    Major keks for this one ! Keep ‘em coming, Dragon slayer.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/86b78c66ba0b769c322493fd6420d16f6e25dfccf4b13e69731571630c200204.jpg

  • entropy

    Peterson is an effective ally against the bizarre excesses of the left; he’s not a messiah.

    You’re right. The personal attacks were uncalled for and he shouldn’t have linked you at all. Simultaneously, congratulations and stop bickering with our allies.

    I’d prefer Peterson, for example, stopped explaining the ‘wage gap’ in terms of how women are more ‘agreeable’ and started simply pointing out that they work less and in lower-skilled positions, but don’t we have enough enemies?

    • Dan Flynn

      I believe Adam’s main priority is not to make anything better, to change anything or to win anything. His main priority is to forge a career as a provocateur/blogger/commentator. He wants to oppose as many things as possible, he thrives on it. It’s the only way he knows how to be in this world.

      • entropy

        You almost make it sound like being contrarian is a bad thing.

        Good to see you’re still lurking in this den of scum and villainy, Dan. I choose to believe you’re doing it for the lulz rather than out of any earnest concern for our souls or the future of humanity.

        • Dan Flynn

          Yeah, I’m still here, the quality of the comments section took a major dive for a while there. I noticed you took some time off also, possibly for the same reason or maybe just life got in the way.
          And yes I’m definitely here for the lulz but also for the future of humanity 🙂

  • Damien Smith

    Was Peterdon drunk/high when he tweeted that? It was accompanied by a fair bit of rapid shitposting involving typos, duplicates and music spamming.

  • I think he’s being sarcastic dude, in fact I think he’s mocking the Left with that tweet. He likely knows you aren’t any of those things and is pointing out to Leftists that even people on the right are critical of him.

    You should ask him to clarify with a detailed argument and invite him to respond to your article in detail. It would be great to watch and if he is what you say he is it will come out in the article.

    Otherwise you can’t take that tweet seriously given his style. He’s prone to sarcasm.

    I’ve watched hours and hours of his work and I see him as a classical liberal, certainly not on the Left. He supports western civilisation, free speech, capitalism and all the things that make the West great.

    He’s not what you accuse him of as far as I can tell.

    Happy to see evidence to proves otherwise but that tweet is not it because I don’t believe it’s serious.

    • It’s also annoying he linked to the wrong twitter account. Must have been drunk lol.

    • Earl Conner

      You got it. JBP’s a-trollin and Adam got triggered. It’s obvious really.

      • W. Hunter

        I appreciate you guys are giving Peterson the benefit of the doubt.
        But I’ve always felt something about him is a bit off.

        Like when you can smell something dead in your garden, but you can’t quite pin down the source of the vile odour.

        • I’ve never seen anything off, as far as I can see he’s genuine.

          As Earl said he’s likely trolling but we’d need a full response to confirm either way.

        • Earl Conner

          He’s maintained from the start is that he doesn’t want to play the IP game. Not stopping anyone from going MGTOW, believing the JQ or joining the KKK.

    • entropy

      Interesting interpretation. I could see it going either way. I guess we’ll just have to wait for episode 3.

    • David Hiscox

      Going by the responses of his Twitter followers, you seem to be the only one who isn’t taking his response seriously. And from my own interactions with Peterson fans of the liberal variety even before Adam’s article, I have found that their minds are completely closed to the idea that identity politics on the right can be a good thing. They take words like “racism” as a serious concept.

      Obviously Peterson is not his fans, but if this was sarcasm you would expect his fans, who aren’t dumb, to get it, and it would be reflected in their comments – they would be similarly making fun of the left. Instead I see a stream of comments equating right wing politics with left wing politics.

  • adiebolt

    He wasn’t mocking a right-wing political affiliation, he was mocking a right-wing identity-politics affiliation.
    Your referencing to a ‘magic dirt’ theory would seem to be the biggest red flag in this regard.
    I’ll acknowledge that JBP was very off-the-cuff in response to you, but frankly… what’d you expect when you came at him swinging wildly with a litany of accusations? If you wanted to debate with him, don’t open by childishly mocking his manhood based limit anecdotal information about his personal life.
    The one point brought up in your initial article that I felt actually carried some weight was your questioning JBP’s seemingly heavy handed assignment of responsibility upon the shoulders of men. This is something of JBP that I have come to question on my own as well. Ultimately though, it’s something that seems to define him and I have mostly chosen to accept his stance as it is. Due to my questioning his stance on male responsibility I am simultaneously looking for alternative ideologies that competently challenge JBP’s.

  • Craig

    JP believes gay marriage of the classical liberal is just dandy.

    I find it comical that atheists and eclectic agnostics are trying to rehabilitate the goose that laid the golden egg of civilizations self destruction. It’s even more hilarious when you have Jewish diaspora academics trying to do the same, without even mentioning Christianity. Laughable.

    Judeo Christianity killed Aryan Christianity. Now Judeo Christianity is withering and dying, I laugh at the indoctrinated lodges.

    Yet it was Aryan Christianity which repelled the last Mohammedan invasion over a millennia ago. Then expanded and created civilization, despite Judeo Christianity, not because of it.

    If you look at eugenics and Darwinism, guess who’s breeding, successfully prosethizing and not letting their children to be indoctrinated?

    I give a hint, it certainly is not the Judeo Christians…

    The more things change the more they stay the same. What once was will be again.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jef2C4T1_A

    • Earl Conner

      He has A BIT more reasoned attitude towards gay couples parenting. I’d prefer if he rejected it outright.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF4PS6sVn3w

      • Voisof Reezon

        I think he’s over cautious on this topic, and maybe slightly soft. It’s pretty clear he’s saying that Mum (female – not trans) and Dad (male – not trans) is the best case according to evidence. However, as when Dave Rubin pushed him on this (as he does all his guests) in his interview, he agreed it was workable or at least didn’t push back terribly hard. Sometimes he plays scientist (like this video), sometime he lets himself slide to the religious. He’s a complex character, but his overall message is good. Be the best you can be. Take responsibility. Take aim toward the highest good you can conceive. Pick up the heaviest load you can. Do what’s best for you, your family and society at large. Do things that are meaningful. … not bad messages and acknowledges he’s not perfect. He isn’t perfect, but he’s better than almost everyone else I can think of in the public sphere. Cheers

        • Earl Conner

          I agree entirely. Can’t believe some on the far right reject said message just because he doesn’t want to usher in the Forth Reich.

  • Well that escalated quickly.

  • Fenimore Hardy

    Peterson has been guilty of a number of intemperate tweets. But his body of work in research, psychometrics, teaching, scholarship, and clinical work with troubled people is sound.

    He seems to be getting some help with bringing his tweets under control. Twitter is an absurd medium that acts like methamphetamine for some people, in some circumstances when they are under a lot of pressure and thus can come more easily unmoored.

    He took about 20 years to get his ideas together in Maps of Meaning. Enriching those ideas and bringing them to the reality of the world may take another 20 years. Tell me the names of the people you think who could have done all those things and raise a functional family too, over that time span.

  • Pingback: In defence of Jordan Peterson, sort of - XYZ [Video] | MaryPatriotNews()

  • D Beguiled

    You also employed feminist tactics, saying that he is not an alpha, even though he hasn’t claimed to be one, is in the same league with saying he is a loser with a small dick living in his mom’s basement.

    Yeah, his tweet was lame and disappointing, but you went after his wife.

    You got what you got.