Is the kind of title you’d expect from your typical millennial conservative youtuber. Jordan Peterson is the typical dispenser of the EPIC pwnage of SNOWFLAKE lefties for this cottage industry of neo-con grifters. Some may be genuine (perhaps Charlie Kirk?) but others not so much (Candace Owens).

Either way, its something that bares acknowledging, because refusal to give these clowns time of day is usually used as a tacit indictment of just how PWN’D their opponents have become. This line of reasoning isn’t hypocritical to flip on conservatives since they often tout themselves as the party of reason/facts/logic/debate and so on. While many leftists, myself included, have some reservations about the concept of providing a platform that implicitly draws an equivalence between the ideas being presented: climate change and creationism are a very illuminating case. Or, on the history/political side of issues you could have the reasonable explanation for banning of holocaust discussion that contrasts typical “free market of ideas” beliefs with the reality of discourse according to experts. *If you’d like a legal “objective” example: review the case of Kitsmiller v. Dover over intelligent design.*

But, none the less, I think that many of Jordan Peterson’s ideas are ones that are above the threshold of crediting a response, and a decent fraction of his followers are ones that (at least ostensibly) identify as liberals, or (god forbid) “classical liberals”.

So. Let’s dive into one of the article Jordan Peterson retweeted to boost himself. Funny how he maligns the media and press constantly despite the preponderance of sycophantic commentary that surrounds him.

Lets ignore the near axiomatic understanding that “popular” does not denote either truth or quality; in fact, any target of controversy (such as the late Milo Yiannopoulos) can attract popularity quite independent of their character, their views, etc.

What’s in the article piece by piece?

“The blue-bubble Los Angeles”

There’s something to be said for the gargantuan failure of the media and pundits to accurately express the 2016 electoral race: and some of this may very well have stemmed from the “coastal elite” narrow sightedness. Arguably, it was also probably the product of a deluded aspiration: not from “this guy can’t win” but from “this guy SHOULDN’T win”. Most people are guilty of projecting their interpretation of events to be universal, when the contrary is true. i.e. if you presuppose black people to be violent, of course you’ll justify the shooting of an unarmed black person when he reaches into his pants for his wallet etc.

Anyway, despite this fault shared by any human living within modern political systems, it should be important to note a few things about the “bubble” that are often negatively implied. Is it any wonder that metropolitan areas are typically dominated by left-wing politics that emphasize equality and humane treatment of workers? These are the people who they’re forced to interact with daily, who are visible crowding the streets: communities that are diverse to their strength. I lack the dedication to truly delve into the literature, but here’s a not-so farfatched hypothesis: what if the people are most adamant about individualism and mono-culturalism are the people who least rely on collectivism, and have the least access to becoming cultured? At any rate, I remember well the irony of that the states which MOST bang around welfare are those that consume it the most.

“discussions, often lengthy, and often on arcane subjects…”

Again, removed from the framework of this article, it should be near-axiomatic that being lengthy (or rather “long-winded”) and “arcane” are neither positive qualities. For instance, tell me what’s fact-based, rational, logical, or in anyway empirical about this image:

How about this one?

This is from Peterson’s Magnum Opus “Maps of Meaning” and it is, largely speaking, fucking non-sense. What’s more, its hardly inspired despite his statement that “I think I have discovered something that no one else has any idea about” (taken from the introduction). If you want a comprehensive take-down of this, i highly suggest reading Nathan J Robinson’s brilliant article about Peterson.

Back to the article. Here, what’s described as “arcane” appears so not in the Merriam Dictionary sense of being “understood by few” but because its practically fucking magic in the guise of philosophy. The obscurantism that Peterson employs gives the impression of sophistication because it -ironically- lacks rigid structure or definition. His long-windedness spins out his ideas long not necessarily because of “precision of language” but because he lacks the ability to articulate these views succinctly. It should be obvious that Peterson does not prize “precision of language” so highly as he claims considering his eagerness of labeling things “politically incorrect” or “post-modern” even when these very things are potentially helpful to his cause.

But lets move on from this perhaps tangential criticism of Peterson’s form of criticism. Perhaps the thrust of its intent is on base?

“With identity politics off the table, it was possible to talk about all kinds of things—religion, philosophy, history, myth—in a different way…

This is a strangely juvenile understanding of the world. Politics is a lens of interpretation used by people living in our societies. This is clear. To act as if Peterson’s evangelical Christian identity operates independently from his understanding of the world is woefully naive. Take, for example, his belief that religion is required for ~art, poetry, drama, story, narrative~ a thought that can only make sense to someone with staunch religious affiliation. Drama is impossible without a god? Drama can be used as a noun: as a descriptive phrase. When waves crash against the beach: this can be drama. When a rat escapes a cat: this too can be drama. In what world does this require a god? In what world are all atheists or artists (secretly?) religious.

Peterson is no more immune to politics and religion influencing his interpretation of events: to oppose the idea that black people or other identities are more disadvantaged than others in no way makes a person automatically impartial or rational. This idea is merely the consequences of a constructed dichotomy, which (help me here Peterson) plays into old archetypes: the emotionally compromised liberal, and the independent amoral (therefore rational!) conservative. But you can be sure that virtually all people base their political beliefs on what they deem “logical”: a post-modernist does not seek to destroy science and empiricism, but to merely promote the understanding that facts and events are subject to dynamic interpretations: to the influence of framing based on the environmental conditions or authorial background etc.

The belief that the world is understandable due to archetypal structures underlying behavior (therefore offering the consolation of predictability in the world) is not inherently logical: its merely the proposition of a logical world. Conversely, the post-modernists idea of the world is not inherently illogical simply because of its proposition that the world is, itself, illogical, irrational, and (objectively speaking) unknowable.

Returning, the idea that “identity politics are off the table” by not addressing them is idiotic. This is no more true that lies by omission: an author who chooses not to cover a major story related to racism (say the passing of Civil Rights) is indirectly commenting on the news by choosing not to cover it. If a person overhears their friend harassing a black person continuously calling them ape, nigger, etc, their silence speaks volumes: “this is okay, this isn’t a big deal, etc”.

Here’s where things get even worse…

“[12 Rules] was difficult to attack on ideological grounds, because it was an apolitical self-help book that was at once more literary and more helpful than most, and that was moreover a commercial success”

I guess this author doesn’t traffic the same circles as I do. This doesn’t make them bad. Perhaps they’ve done their research, but have fallen victim to self-selection bias all people tend to be exposed to.

Here’s an excerpt from 12 Rules:

“According to Derrida, hierarchical structures emerged only to include (the beneficiaries of that structure) and to exclude (everyone else, who were therefore oppressed). Even that claim wasn’t sufficiently radical. Derrida claimed that divisiveness and oppression were built right into language—built into the very categories we use to pragmatically simplify and negotiate the world. There are “women” only because men gain by excluding them. There are “males and females” only because members of that more heterogeneous group benefit by excluding the tiny minority of people whose biological sexuality is amorphous. Science only benefits the scientists. Politics only benefits the politicians. In Derrida’s view, hierarchies exist because they gain from oppressing those who are omitted. It is this ill-gotten gain that allows them to flourish.”

Sounds exactly like everything else Peterson says in lectures, podcasts, and writes on blogs. Its almost as if the book is… Not at all apolitical? And again, even in the written form, Peterson’s famous “precision of language” is missing since people who are actually knowledgeable on these subjects continually have to correct the misinformation or omissions of Peterson’s opinions.

All you need read to get a taste of this is that:

“In response, Derrida set out to show how the structuralist desire to produce a central totality, to determine all its elements and show how they joined together in a whole and expressed in themselves the very structure of the whole, nevertheless had to acknowledge the constant possibility of disruption. But this did not mean that Derrida believed any word could mean anything.”

“what he and the other members of the so-called “intellectual dark web” are offering is kryptonite to identity politics.”

Do i really have to refute this? It seems like Jordan Peterson forgets the existence of civil rights when discussing these issues. But, if you want a longer engagement with this premise, here’s a thought: Peterson’s resistance to the infamous Bill C-16 was very simply “An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code”

What does this mean specifically? It means amending protection from discrimination such that “gender expression” (transgender people) cannot be booted from work because of their identity, and so on. Peterson took issue with this bill because of the precedent of “compelled speech”. Compelled speech how? Well, that would stem from the protection of people from harassment by landlords based on their identity; indirectly, this could extend to pronouns.

Now ask yourself, if you had a humiliating nickname your landlord knew (say “stringbean” for someone with a history of anorexia, etc) and continued to use as a pattern of harassment despite your stated feelings is this really necessary? Can anyone really argue that, for another example, a landlord who calls a sex-abuse victim something like “sweet-cheeks” is being SILENCED because his actions are deemed to be harassment by the target?

Even if you grant that this is a free speech issue, Peterson is essentially making this trade off: “the possibility of any future misuse of this precedent overrides the important of these rights helping to humanize transgender people NOW”. This, in my estimation, is not his decision to make: transgender people deserve protection for the problems they currently experienced and the spurious “threat” posed by an unknowable future cannot counteract real-world benefits in the present.

This is not “kryptonite” to identity politics, its called being an asshole that thinks his peace-of-mind from paranoid fantasies of future dystopias are more important than providing transgender people protection from discrimination.

I could write and entire article ALONE on the hilarious and pervasive libertarian notion that individualism is the solution to everything; that, in other words, that black people need only pick themselves up by their bootstraps and “escape the plantation” by spuring their collective racial identity. The libertarian mindset is one that defends the status quo: it denies black people even the opportunity of complaining about empirically quantifiable discrimination because it is fundementally guided by the idea -much like evangelical Christians- that the individual is wholly autonomous. People are an island of their own and guide their actions regardless of societal or environmental pressures. Grow up in poverty? Why do you commit crime more? You just have to MAKE “better” choices (nevermind the cyclical nature of poverty, violence, and so on that maintains this system).

This is the crux of the issue: by embracing structuralism so devoutly people like Peterson offer the comfort of narrative (again like Christianity) that ultimately deprives marginalized people of the ability to improve their collective lives. Rather than acknowledging that the experience of black people (on average) are on way, Peterson can ignore the way their differing experience informs their understanding of race relations (one which is obviously more accurate than that of a white person’s understanding of the black experience) and simply defer to telling them to strive individually for self-betterment. No one denies that individuals can overcome racism, but its existence is a fact, and discussions of its improvement and its existence should center on its victims: the ones most familiar with its operation, rather than the ones who stand to most benefit from ignoring it. This too highlights how a lies by omission, false-equivalences can be negative; yes, individualism can overcome oppressive systems, but this distracts from fundamentally reshaping these hinderances rather than having to overcome them. To state one possible solution, however impracticable or amoral, in defiance to the one most effectual and most aspirational is a tacit admission of a person’s divestment from the issues at hand. A white person CAN say “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” because of their dissociation with the issues. They CAN claim (falsely) “rationality” and the virtue of “logic” because they’re often not as emotionally touched by the effects of systemic racism.

“It is because the left, while it currently seems ascendant in our houses of culture and art, has in fact entered its decadent late phase”

WEW LADDIE. Now that is a very very spicy meme. I have to extend the benefit of the doubt in assuming this author is ignorant of the associations of this framework, but the idea of “decadence” and civilization in “phases” is straight up nazi-shit.

First of all, “Reich” derives from a reference to the old Germanic “Holy Roman Empire”. Hitler himself, as an authoritarian, modeled his empire in many ways off Rome. Part of this was dictatorial, and part of it is to harken back to a sense of heritage and “classicism” that opposed the modernist aesthetic of upheaval, subjectivity, etc.

Now in regards to “decadence” and “late phases” there’s a very popular idea on the far-right and alt-right that multiculturalism and “rapeugees” were the cause for Rome’s fall. Hey, here’s one: “The Fall of the Roman Empire or Multicultural Dream” where our totally-not-a-fascist author states both “I am on the lookout for old, good films” and “There is a lot of fascist energy in this movie.” or “The fascist energy and egalitarian-globalist message are summed up in an impressive early military parade scene, with diverse units from all the nations”

In other words, his feelings, and the view of history in a cyclical or phase structure can be summed up in this image:

This is the fascist mindset: authority rules all, and weak-willed backstabbing hedonistic liberals doom the empire to its inevitable fall. Another word for hedonism? “decadence”. The title of the third image from top its actually “Romans During the Decadence”, while there’s also the entire subject of “Degenerate Art“. I’m no expert, but I’m at least aware that the phrase “decadence” plays into it heavily; why are homosexuals who they are? Oh, well its clearly a “decadence” of sexual appetite: they they’re degenerates whose very identity centers on sodomy!

Maybe I belabor this point by going off on such a historical tangent, but its important to understand what kinds of alarm-bells set off when an actual leftists reads this kind of material, or the material that Peterson creates. These are not unreasonable things. Leftists are not terrified by people like this author or Peterson because of their intellectual vigor, but because -knowingly or not- they can sometimes spout rhetoric such as this that plays DIRECTLY into the political/ideological framework of avowed fascists and authoritarians.

And all of this is written without engaging with the fact that leftism in younger generations is still higher than that of republicans. Our author has a point, but its based on a linear extrapolation of present trends that -in the era of Trump- are far from set in stone. In fairness, our author could have attributed the decline of support for democrats to the rise in support for socialism that has been most prominently illustrated by Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Bernie Sander’s role in politics today whether by their increasing visibility, or the way they’ve guided democrats farther left in policy.

~Yada yada a meeting with trump… Yada yada hatred of white people…~

To compare the anti-media rhetoric that Trump routinely employs to undermine the integrity of journalists as a check against executive power and his record-breaking lies to the hiring of a questionable person is idiotic.

Ask yourself: “what poses a greater threat?” the President of the United States labeling any negative criticism “fake news” while simultaneously lying and reframing events wherever convenient, or a journalist of one news paper who merely tweets “fuck white people” and later apologizes under extreme criticism. Hell, just ask yourself which one is more affected by criticism and is more subject to change. If you want a primer on the way that Trumps language is modeled on (or at least resembles) authoritarian and fascist views here’s a good video. These things are not comparable. They’re not even in the same universe. I don’t share Sarah Jeong’s beliefs, but her targets are stalwartly American: the “cop”, the “white american”, and the president are all iconic images of American heritage identity: they’re all symbols or tools of authority that have power, and -in some cases- misuse this power. Who are Trump’s targets? “animals” (immigrants) who “infect” (immigrate) the country to rape (i.e. work for a better life). Or Muslims writ large that are deemed dangerous and foreign all the while the USA continues arms deals with the country that supplied the majority of 9/11 terrorists. These are people who are, on average, without power or authority.

This is all ignoring that Jeong’s tweet about white people being “goblins” whose sensitive skin restricted them to the darkness of caves was a clear hyperbolic satirization of race-realist rhetoric that denies the humanity of black people based simply on genetic qualities like lactose-intolerance, etc.

The whole tweet: “Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.” is posited as a question. and the word “logically” should be clear indicator (after this article) that its really another form of discussion about these same archetypal cultural subjects: the dichotomy of the rational non-plussed (masculine) individual and the hyper-emotional, irrational (feminine) collective. Hey! Jordan Peterson plays back into this symbolism too! Rather telling too that the highest comments are “date a woman” and a focus on “birth” of chaos in defiance to the “rough split between male and female” chaos gods. Why would Peterson’s cross-cultural analysis of representations of chaos through myth ignore this split? Obvious, his evangelical christian sensibilities privilege a focus on Eve as the one responsible for (symbolically) birthing chaos through the forbidden fruit.

There is no history of these kinds of comical questions having consequences or even popularity against white people: they’re a parody. But their counterpart? Not so much.

“His audience is huge and ever more diverse”

Here’s a poll taken from Jordan Peterson’s reddit: not a comprehensive or totalizing evaluation of his fans, but certainly a good litmus test for his biggest supporters and perhaps accurate of a broad picture. A quick summary:

White = 82% while all other ethnicities comprise too small a fraction to even label.

Male = 90% go figure.

Single = 77% and Married = 17%. Funny how the traditional values icon of self-improvement reaps this result?

Average IQ (questionably included) = 36% 121-130 (above average) / 24% 130-140 (just shy of genius iq at 140) / 10.4% of above genius iq (representing 0.25% of the population)

A modest ~30% lay in the average area of IQ distribution.

“The Nation’s poetry implosion; the Times’ hire; and Obama’s distress call isn’t at least partly responsible for the election of Donald Trump, you’re dreaming”

Pedantry aside (none of these events occurred before the election), this is another way of glossing over the most important effects. Yes, it is possible that “the left” and its some of its fringe figures polarized some prospective voters farther right. I myself was tentatively pro-Trump at the time of the election for a number of reasons. But here are some actual reasons:

A) Comey’s reinvestigation of Hillary.

B) The notion that anyone so easily swayed by “reverse racism” on the left was probably already deeply sympathetic to the right’s white identity politics.

C) The fact that Clinton was a poor candidate and how the DNC jeopardized Sanders’ campaign, and so on.

Any contribution made by polarizing statements like “fuck white people” (often made by nobodies in terms of political influence) are negligible compared to the role that fear-mongering xenophobia had on the election.

“And if you think the only kind of people who would reject such madness are Republicans, you are similarly deluded.”

Deluded? The GOP is utterly kowtowed to Republicans. They, at least as a representation of their constituents, demonstrate almost utter subservience to Trump. The candidate who votes with Trump THE LEAST is fucking Rand Paul, a person who is well known for his libertarian politics that (sometimes) lead him to the right place. Something like 80% of Republicans here vote in alignment with Trump’s positions to a 90% degree.

The whole “#nevertrump” movement is a farce more accurately labeled: #sometimestrump. Ben Shapiro, another infamous IDW hack was prominently #NeverTrump based on the damage to the character of the conservative party. But no more! He’ll agree with and Support trump if its politically expedient, and thinks the “damage to discourse” is already been done irreparably, so who cares if you support him since he’s already in office.

Let me sum up my thoughts as such: Adam Kinzinger frames himself loosely with #NeverTrump in August of 2016, and now that Trump is in office? He votes in accordance with Trump 98.9% of the time. What a fucking joke.

This author can only possible be credited over this sentence if you assume that she means to speak on behalf of the mythological “moderate conservative”. But how can this matter when the representatives of these people vote in accordance with Trump to such a slavish degree? The kinds of people who she claims “reject such madness” are, more likely than not, the same kinds who believe Trump to be the lesser of two evils (he isn’t) between a conservative present and a SPOOKY and SCARY socialist future.

Finally we reach our apotheosis on this meandering rant-y journey into the depths a Peterson fan-article.

“These are people who aren’t looking for an ideology; they are looking for ideas”

They are people who are looking to confirm their own ideas. Most people, left and right, are guilty of this. But thankfully I managed to skew farther left from the curious overlap of a conventionally conservative-white domain and a left-wing personality.

A person’s professed absence of ideology is itself a form of ideology. This is elementary, but especially problematic when contextualized by the subject in which in most commonly crops up. When a person claims not to be at all ideological over race or class the premises quickly follow: no ideology –> logical –> objective –> more informed –> correct and unbiased analysis of events.

In reality, to claim that someone is completely un-compromised by their upbringing, background, class, race, etc, bespeaks the fact that they are influenced by these characteristics: that they’re ignorant on these issues to the degree that they don’t even view them to issues at all. Sure, this is an inflammatory title, but the basics are simple: viewing all people the same way necessarily ignores qualities that should denote preferential treatment.

A poor person who ascends to the same SAT scores as someone from an affluent background is overwhelmingly likely to have overcome more difficulties and had a greater propensity for self-education, ambition or so on. Assuming all other qualities are equal of course, this is not to erase the kinds of disadvantages that can be experienced by the rich in regards to disability, sexual harassment, racism, etc. But there’s a complicated intermingling of the qualities that are attached to different identities, i.e. intersectionalism.

Closing This Off:

This has been very very long and perhaps not well structured. Much of it is ad hoc without any attempts at revision, comprehensive research, or systematic refutation. I’ve only carried in the kinds of opinions and thoughts i have from the top of my head and the things which this article have inspired in me. Read Nathan J Robinson’s article if you want a very in-depth essay-style research piece on Peterson.

All I want is for people to get a semblance of the complexity involved in these discussions: of what is entailed by talking about history cyclically, or the things necessarily involved by a individualist POV on race issues in the states, or the socially constructed idea of “reason” and “logic” that plays out.

Treat people nicely. Listen to what marginalized people have to say about their experiences, read lots of news to get a sense of the facts (yes some are more and less biased, so cast your net wide). And stop, for god’s sake, thinking that criticism indicates fear and that fear represents some kind of emotional sensationalism.