The world needs Jordan Peterson. That may sound like the statement of a fan or a friend — and I am both — but it is also a fact illustrated by the sheer numbers who come to him seeking guidance and help. There has been no other public intellectual in recent years who has attracted the kind of following Peterson has. His book, 12 Rules for Life, sold by the millions; his speaking events drew thousands of attendees, night after night, in cities across the world, in what became a gruelling schedule for Peterson. And this was not some top-down publicity-led phenomenon: it was a grass-roots movement in which readers and viewers gravitated towards the Canadian academic.
But then, a year ago, the world lost Peterson. He disappeared from view and it was eventually announced that the professor had been checked into a rehabilitation facility after developing an addiction to benzodiazepines, an anti-anxiety drug which is widely available in the US and other countries. Speculation has been rife ever since about whether he would ever be back and exactly what happened to him during this dark and painful period.
This week we got some answers, with a video in which, speaking directly to camera for the first time in a year, the professor gave some details of what had happened since his last public appearance. As Peterson related, he became hooked on the medication after upping his dosage, apparently in the wake of his wife’s diagnosis and treatment for cancer last year.
He attempted to get off the medication himself, but found that no American facility would allow him to go full cold turkey on the drug, and so he ended up in a facility in Russia where he successfully freed himself from the drug but almost died in the process. Since then he has been in rehabilitation facilities in a number of other countries but — as he announced in his video — he is now finally back home in Toronto.
This and much more will doubtless be pored over by the professor’s friends and fans, and Peterson’s readers and audience members were more than that. They were people who gravitated towards him because they believed — knew — that here was a man who could help them make sense of some of the chaos in their own lives and in the world around them. Many authors have signing-queues in which readers tell them how much their books have meant to them; Peterson’s readers told them how he had changed their lives. I saw this first-hand, with people explaining how, since becoming acquainted with Peterson’s work, their lives had transformed. It would be easy to scoff at this — but it would also be wrong.
One of the strangest and most baffling aspects of the Peterson phenomenon has been the way in which his critics failed to contend with his points and arguments. And not just the specifics, but the fact that anybody with such a following must be onto something. Of course critics primarily on the ideological Left claimed that Peterson was some kind of fringe “alt-right” figure, against the evidence of any and all of his words. It was telling that they remained so incurious about the popularity of his work.
You would have thought that if any Canadian professor who had previously been obscure rose to prominence across the world, with audiences of thousands rising to their feet to welcome him every night, then whatever their ideological stance people — including critics — would try to work out what it was that he was onto. Yet Peterson’s critics, from Cathy Newman to the New York Times and the BBC, consistently failed to see any interest in the bigger story. They tried to bring him down, of course. They tried to portray him as some kind of monster, trip him up, laugh at him or otherwise reveal some underlying horror.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeYes – Welcome back, Mr Peterson. If you annoy the despicable, smug, totalitarian left then you’re a friend of mine in any case; but if you so courageously discard their shibboleths and blinkers and vile jargon, then you are to be respected and admired.
Revered, even.
He’s a friend of mine only if he annoys the despicable, smug totalitarian right as well.
I think we would all agree on that but I’m not sure a right wing equivalent exists in any effective or relevant capacity.
Quite. Is it the right getting people sacked for disagreeing? Is it the right openly discriminating against certain ethnic groups in publishing, arts and media? Is it the right imposing so-called “unconscious bias training” designed to cow and indoctrinate the workforce? Is it the right which supports “feminism” up to and including infanticide style abortion in Europe but shuts its mouth pronto when dealing with Islamic womanhood? Is it the right which dominates the media and slants every last morsel of output, from “comedy” to current affairs with all the shadiest tricks in the book? The left has got so used to telling itself there is no such thing as truth, it doesn’t even know when its lies – stated or just implied – are howlingly obvious.
Excellent comment. There is nothing there with which I could disagree.
Thank you for your encouraging words.
Thank you for such an absolutely outstanding and spot on comment!!! You just ripped the guts right out of the left the way I do an Elk after I kill it and I go to skin it for the meat to put in the freezer.
Thank you. Bravo 🙌 Bravo 👠Bravo 🙌
That’s quite the analogy, Sir, although I’d rather eat an elk than a lefty.
Many thanks.
It’s you that’s in denial, ducky – you have no evidence to back your bigoted, neo-Bolshevik spluttering. A strong left influence in academe? You mean anyone not left wing afraid to publish research which the left wishes to shut up and close down. The sheer brass necked revulsion from reality on your part shows you to be either indoctrinated or malicious.
Back up your theory that the UK MSM, esp TV is right wing please?
Good example of what I described earlier, confusion as to what constitutes right and left wing in the modern political arena. this sounds like an analysis from the cold war era.
I`ll bet you`re a bundle of laughs to hang out with.
Thank you! Well written!
Ooh! Anthony (view from Mt. Olympus) Devonshire has no time for Jordan Peterson! Ooh!
“twitter is a right wing conspiracy theory bloodbath”
Have you ever been on Twitter? At all?
‘…….in the UK the news that most people still consume and still indirectly forms opinions ie. newspapers and the TV is overwhelmingly right wing…..’
It really isn’t. Most of it is overwhelmingly Blairite.
What is ‘the right’ these days? Anyone who disagrees with you, I expect.
Anyone to the right of me? Rotten fascists. Anyone to the left of me? Damn commies. I am smack in the reasonable middle. It you others that are akimbo! (Going off now to scrutinize your social media history to see if you deserve doxing.)
weird
So true. I’ve been a central leaning lefty most of my life and old left-wing friends are starting to view me with suspicion because I question their orthodoxy. A friend’s husband has actually banned me from the house because I said something positive (or simply, not negative) about Trump. It seems trying to have a balanced opinion is the equivalence of heresy.
Good for you! It’s in such exchanges and reactions that one discovers who one’s true friends are.
Bingo! You nailed it my friend!!
Agree. But, furthermore, just talking in terms of ‘the right’ and ‘the left’ is intellectually lazy. How would you describe someone who holds right-leaning views on some topics, left-leaning views on other topics, and is completely neutral on the vast majority of other issues that they haven’t yet had time to study and consider properly? It certainly conserves us mental energy to paint someone with a ‘left’ or ‘right’ brush, and then carry on as if you’re interacting with a completely monolithic representative of that political ideology.
Can you give us some examples of who these totalitarian right wing people are?
And to be Robert Forde’s friend is to die for!
Fortunately, he does. Alt-righters are vociferous in their hatred of him, since he criticizes the excesses of fascism and is not a race-nationalist.
The phrase “totalitarian right” is inherently self-contradictory.
Entrusting one’s allegiances on the the basis that ‘my enemies enemy is my friend’ never ends well, and furthermore suggests that you are misreading something fairly profound at the heart of his thinking.
Those of us opposed to “woke” need all the friends we can get. And nothing ends well in this life. Hadn’t you noticed?
Exceptional & courageous man-always loved the way he’s almost in anguish as he tries to articulate correctly & precisely what the issue is-so far removed from the glib sound bites that are served up by the intellectually weak minded. Also the way he retorts “these things are complicated” ie please don’t patronise and insult me with your simple binary assertions.
I love the way he conducts himself and get reassurance that its ok to consider issues in depth and to reference the research & data.The added bonus is of course that he represents everything the ideologically obsessed “progressive (sic)” left hate-, fierce intelligence,intellectual rigour,wide learning,analysis,factual referencing,independence of thought,and a love of freedom.
Lets hope he gets back to full health -for his sake and for the his millions of admirers.
Not sure I get the correlation between benzodiazepines and his intellectual capability-the world is and always has been full of exceptional people who have abused drugs or drink or have other character defects-are we only to listen to the pure and unviolated?Are you concerned about what fuelled George Bests God given football genius given his chronic alcoholism?
As for “being right” thats a judgement for the listener to make -not the speaker-at best Peterson stimulates discussion and rigorous thinking -and unlike the self righteous progressive illiberal left who adopt a position of moral superiority as an a priori assumption.
True, but not so many of them have preached a life of traditional virtue; emphasising self-control, planning and discipline; as Peterson has.
And this is an example of what I wrote just above. Peterson has not “preached” to anyone. ‘Preached’ is an equivocal misrepresentation.
He has engaged in ‘lectures’ as he himself describes them. And that is not an excuse to go again and equivocate on the term ‘lecture’. He meant it the sense of an educational talk, not a reproachful talk to an involuntary audience.
Further, as he himself has said, he is no different than his audience and as such shares their human frailties.
In addition, it would seem that seeking professional clinical help for treating an addiction would be a clear example of “emphasising self-control, planning and discipline”.
Well, the fan boys and girls are definitely in the building tonight. I respect Peterson’s intelligence and the broad scope of his knowledge, but in his commercial enterprises, he’s really no different from any other self-help guru peddling models by which to live.
And who do YOU look up to pray tell?
self-help guru peddling models by which to live.Peddling being a carefully chosen verb presumably to imply some form of cheap,insubstantial product?Personally I’ve read and learnt a huge amount from a fair number of “self help gurus” if thats your chosen description.Each to their own-
I’ve listened to Mr Peterson and come away with a high regard for his position, to the point, I would love to hear more. I do not believe he was trying to “elevate people to His level”, but rather share with them the ideals of a life well-lived through religion and the struggles all people, including himself, must deal. To view his internal struggle in demonstrating his very deeply held beliefs is in itself inspirational, If the common man of religion does not ask and try to explain to himself through research and conversation the depth of all religious teachings, then is he truly embedded in his beliefs or is he passively accepting anyone’s pap?
Suggested, never preached
George Best never told, to my knowledge, anyone else how to live their lives.
And Jordan Peterson has never “told”, to my knowledge, anyone else how to live their lives.
He has laid out his views, based on an academic synthesis in his textbook Maps of Meaning.
The use of the term “told” as in “preach” is a good motte-and-bailey tactic evolving equivocation.
The alcohol depleted his talent and breathtaking skill though. You certainly cannot say that benzos slowed down JP’s thinking processes. I admire him more now! Think what he would be like without the anxiety!
Haven’t heard Jordan Peterson telling anyone either…suggesting is not telling.
He was medically prescribed them for a serious condition he was in after food poisoning, and was then medically advised to continue them when his wife was diagnosed.
But don’t let facts get in the way of your judgements…
They never do, Simon. They never do.
Yes. So is Oxycontin. Prescribed. Perdue just paid $8 billion, however.
Not yet they haven’t. As of yesterday afternoon they are appealing that here in the States.
“Frankly, if his anxiety levels are sdo high that he has to take tranquilisers (and, clearly, overdo them) I’d be concerned about what’s fuelling his ideas.”
I’m not sure what this means, it reads like a complete non-sequitur.
Yes, it struck me as a baffling non-sequitur as well.
And you’re surprised?
Badly put, but I think I see what you are suggesting. I don’t think we have perfect access to the impressions and ideas that shape our immediate self. Much as I admire a lot of the writings of Peterson, like you I’m always wary of the power and influence that self confident rhetoric can inspire. Most people are far too keen to find and follow gurus. Better to read widely and critically, listen sceptically and think independently.
Have to say, I’m worried about his apparent ‘leap of faith’. As Voltaire said, “As long as people continue to believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities.” Far better to gain creative power and courage by continuing to look into the abyss and hope, that when the abyss stares back at you, your GP doesn’t hand out benzodiazepines.
Ah, but we still don’t know what he means by ‘god’ nor ‘grace’ nor ‘mercy’. He is very unclear as to what he means by these terms and when he seems to be clear their use defies gauging a precise meaning.
‘Absurdities’ depends again on what the term applies to. And the idea ‘absurdities’ have an inherent property that is an ipso facto condition for atrocities is a non sequitur IMO.
Can you write that again please ..in english?
Peterson does not engage in ‘rhetoric’, except as needed to structure his thinking. Which is what he does engage in. He has clearly ‘read widely and critically, listened skeptically, and thought independently.’ Sounds like a good role model to me.
Unfortunately, there are few perfect angels in the world. Including you. Presumably his wife is past the worst. I’m unsurprised that he has suffered from anxiety because the hate gang are relentless and unforgiving – unless one ot their own and then they are more than forgiving, of course.
He has suffered from an (undisclosed) auto immune disease as well as anxiety and depression.
His wife Tammy had a terminal cancer diagnosis after being initially told the condition was benign.
Fortunately she received surgery that removed the source of the terminal diagnosis but it left serious problems with a lymph duct (as I recall) that continued to leak into her abdomen.
After much consultation they found a surgeon that managed to ‘creatively’ repair the problem.
Thank you for a perfect demonstration of what Douglas said about Petersen’s critics.
His ‘air of confidence’ comes from his ability to think, ie. he is totally comfortable openly displaying his thought processes in public. It’s not about being ‘right’. It’s about being adept at using the tools of productive reflection. Listening to him, I am generally hearing a person thinking out loud within a loose structure, which naturally implies a respect for others’ freedom to process their ideas. It seems defensive to equate that confidence with arrogance, if that’s what you are implying.
Well said indeed. I saw him in London with the wonderful Sam Harris and Douglas Murray. A treat indeed. He is to me an absolute hero and not looking for glory. His passion incites you to really think about the issues. I am no ‘incel’ either, but a 66 yr old lady (or is that “person who used to menstruate”? I’m not sure these days).
You can always try “Womb-retainer” and then you don’t have to mention the “M” word, (because ladies never do, you know…. )
How about saying womb-man quickly?
Your comment says more about you than it does about him. I suggest you take a good long look in the mirror.
You are a perfect example of the people that Douglas Murray so perfectly described that came out to attack Mr Peterson. The “snide sneering
“intellectual elite.”
Getting an addiction through no fault of his own but now taking responsibility for his recovery.
Overcoming it takes a LOT of energy..psychic and otherwise.
He’ll now be even more ‘dangerous’ to the looney left..
God bless Mr Peterson.
Well said Robert. You are absolutely spot on there and people who deny this are shameless cowards. I love Peterson’s intellect but if he was so “weak” to become dependent on benzodiazepines when he knew full well the risks associated with these drugs, we have to seriously question his judgement and reasoning. 🤔 That certainly does not disqualify him from writing or broadcasting but it enables us and instructs us to take a step back. It is important to note that many geniuses and strong leaders have ‘dark’ issues and skeletons in their closets.
He says he was not aware of the risks associated with these drugs. However, as a great admirer of JP I do believe you are right to point out the danger of over-adulation. As you say, even great people are human and have their weaknesses and blind spots.
A central plank of his thinking is that life is hellish and will make you suffer. The lesson of his book is that you will make mistakes and you will face chaos, but its important to develop the psychological tools to face up to life. At no time does he profess to be anything other than another flawed mortal trying to cope with the horrors of the world, so it is very very weird to see his own flaws as evidence that his lesson is discredited.
Spot on. I love the way he calmly rips apart these faux leftist intellectuals especially, the TV interviewers who are so used to dominating the discussion. Welcome back Sir.
Millions of people rightly or wrongly take benzos…. including very intelligent ones who are under huge pressure and struggle with the pressure. Know the ones who NEVER take them? People with a high threshold for arousal…. psychopaths and sociopaths who thrive on the cut and thrust.
Robert Forde is being frank with us! Also, he’s concerned!!
Thank you Douglas Murray – and the world needs you too!
Amen to that. Two good men with the courage to do what is necessary to stop evil triumphing.
Oh stop it! Both good thinkers and articulate proponents of a particular world view. But please, stop the hero worship!
And what’s wrong with having real heroes?
Nothing. Indeed. it is to be commended.
In his pre-illness life Dr Peterson recommended living ‘as if God exists’. I wonder whether, having gone through the belly of the whale, his beautiful words ‘with God’s grace and mercy’ mean that he has taken the next step. This often happens in extreme crisis.
Anyway, welcome back Dr Peterson. The world needs you.
Hope not. I struggle with trusting the thinking of anyone who believes without evidence.
I struggle with trusting the thinking of anyone who believes without evidence.
we have an entire political movement that calls for summary execution at the mention of “only women get pregnant,” which has more than its share of evidence. There is no shortage of people who believe for whatever reason. As to religion, it’s called faith for a reason.
Yes, but the problem with faith is that it’s wanting to believe that which isn’t true And that which poisons everything. It’s effect on humanity is worse than putting benzodiazepine into all of our water supplies.
how do you know it isn’t true? The true believer and the militant atheist are twin sides of the same coin, each steadfast in his viewpoint, each convinced that the other is wrong, neither able to convince the other or to empirically ‘prove’ his case.
But what do you mean by atheist when you use it?
Atheism is precisely the lack of a viewpoint. It is the lack of a position.
So an atheist is someone who has no position or view on the question of the existence of God? Odd usage.
No, agnosticism is the lack of a viewpoint. These definitions have been around for decades and even centuries, we ought to stick with them.
No it isn’t. Atheism is the belief – or viewpoint if you will – that there is no god. What you’re thinking of is agnosticism. An agnostic doubts the existence of God, hence agnosticism can be defined as the lack of a belief both in God’s existence and in his non-existence.
Exactly.
Ah youre the repository of truth..! Errrm okayyy.
Hi Stu, I’m wondering what sort of people you mind in your statement.
I’m a Christian because I believe in the good evidence for the historical resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
The evidence for the resurrection of Christ would be considered very compelling indeed were it to be produced in a court of law. Also, alternative theories are substantially less compelling and require a huge leap of faith to sustain them. The biggest reason why people do not believe is because they have either not bothered to research properly the evidence themselves – which is just intellectual laziness, or because their blind FAITH in their own presuppositions and prejudices does not allow them to approach the subject objectively. Christian faith is founded on historical fact. Get over it; or better still do some proper research.
The bible would get thrown out as inadmissable. What other ‘evidence’ would be presented?
Believe what you want, but you are kidding yourself if you think the bible stories of the resurrection constitute ‘evidence’.
The “intellectual elite”??? always show me just how narrowminded they truly are.
And yet an oath is usually taken on a bible in a court of law..
The “evidence” for God isn’t of the scientific or rational kind. It requires a certain kind of openness at a deeper level. What I like about JBP is that he clearly values science and rationality–but recognizes their inadequacies at the same time.
Bingo you nailed it. Isn’t it funny, the so-called intellectual elite which are always on the left portray themselves to be so open minded. Until the Bible is brought up. Then their minds slam shut! Up tight as an oyster. They always reveal themselves by showing just how narrow minded/ closed minded they really are.
Next time you switch on your light,try and work out how it happens..
Do you live as if there is only material reality? I’m guessing that you don’t.
Best bit of news I have seen all week. Both Peterson and Murray use language beautifully in an age when many obfuscate, lie or hold words to ransom so that we may no longer use them with their original meaning or intent
Peterson is always at pain to explain his reasoning, not his beliefs. Nothing “guru” or “preachy” or “self confident” about him. No false modesty. It’s the opposite to woke. He’s a messenger. Those millions who have found solace and guidance in his messages and changed their ways for the better speak volume to his value to humanity.
Quite simple the message: Life can be very tough (observation), don’t blame anyone for your personal misery (outside your control, not productive), focus on forming habits that will take you out of the hole you are in (within your control), once you have sorted your life you could then help others (extending your sphere of influence, contributing to society).
The Left forms beliefs first, then blames everyone and everything that exists for its misery in why those beliefs aren’t universally applied, goes all out to destroy civil society to remake it, finds itself self-destructing and bringing the world around it down with it.
Peterson: Learn & think before claiming & acting.
Left: Claim & act before thinking & learning.
Folks here is another absolutely outstanding comment!!!! ‘
VERY well put.
I’m not religious – in fact I was/am very anti-religion because it is a controlling and often authoritarian institution. But I recognised that one saving grace (if the religious here will allow me to use the expression) was that they were an organisation that could stand up to secular power. Now without religions commanding an alternative viewpoint, politicians have taken control and all power rests in their hands. We are galloping towards a global tyranny driven by the revolutionary piety of the left. These are worrying times.
Hardly. There are very few leftwing governments in power in 2020. And the opposing parties (Poland, Hungary) are neither very democratic nor very secular in their approach.
Hi Robert – You will have to define leftwing. I see no Conservative governments in power.
Its hardly an issue of Government or political leaning -its a cultural war that has infected our institutions per se.
The conservatives/right are in power in most of the world but somehow the left is running the world through some sort of insidious cultural infiltration. If this is true why are the left so anxious to change the formal power arrangements and actually win elections and overturn non elected right wing governments? Why should the right care about losing the ‘cultural war’ when they are already in power? Or is the argument that the left aren’t quite in power yet but will be because they will use their dastardly culture war victories to brainwash people into voting for them via the mainstream media that, again, is largely controlled and owned by the right?
What I think is getting lost in all these debates is that “right” and “left” in politics are a metaphor. What “right” meant in the post-French Revolution era when the term actually had literal meaning was the supporters of throne and altar: people whose goal was actively to restore traditional hierarchies and preserve traditional institutions. By comparison, most so-called right-wing governments now are Tory Leninists. We should stop using “left” and “right”, and use more precise terms that actually reflect the politics being advocated.
However, I think the answer to Mr Bridgeford’s question is that the parties we usually refer to as “right-wing” – i.e., the Tory Leninists and their ilk – stand to lose little by allowing the so-called “left” (which has notably abandoned traditional socialist pursuits such as economic redistribution) to pursue its culture war. Indeed, they stand to gain plenty from a situation where the culture war bubbles on: it’s most unlikely, for instance, that the Johnson manifesto would have won working-class votes and northern seats had the election been conducted on economic grounds; however, with the Brexit culture war as the election’s main issue, it was easy to do so. If so-called “conservative” parties weren’t able to frame elections on these grounds, they would have to defend their widely unpopular economic policies.
So I think the “right” will strive to keep the culture war bubbling along, while trying to ensure that the “left” doesn’t actually win it.
Very perceptive. It’s something I have wondered about for a little while. It’s rather obvious this is what is sending people to vote for Trump rather than Biden (and as you say Johnson rather than Corbyn). Trump’s tax cuts and so forth all sounded good and yes he created some more low paid jobs, but really the rich have got richer and inequality is becoming a bigger issue. That too is made to feed into the culture wars.
After which all you have to do is find another hate figure that everyone, right, left, woke whatever can buy into. China fits the bill nicely.
” Trump’s tax cuts and so forth all sounded good and yes he created some more low paid jobs, but really the rich have got richer and inequality is becoming a bigger issue. That too is made to feed into the culture wars. “
____________________________________________________________
You are dead wrong. You need to stop spouting left wing rhetoric and start doing some actual research. Under the tax cuts people like me that makes $75,000 or more, have seen a tremendous gain. Just under my federal income tax refund, I have had more money come back to me than ever before. BY FAR. Try $3,250. The lowest amount so far.
And The tax cuts that corporations got, they poured back into their companies and into there employees.
In the first year they were pouring the money back into employees by passing out checks to us. But oh no, CNN ABC CBS NBC MSDNC None of them dared talk about any of this on their shows or what his policies created in our country.
Companies went on the biggest hiring binge, never before seen in our Nation.
The strongest economic recovery in the history of our Nation. And created more jobs than ever before. And everything I say if you go to the trouble which you will not do but if you did go to the trouble to research everything I say just on federal websites, you would see this. But I already know you won’t do it.
All you will do is spout left wing rhetoric. I will close with this, because of his tax cuts my company was able to give each employee a minimum of $1,500 dollars. You should see what your large corporations did. Companies like Caterpillar, John Deere, Apple,
Microsoft, Ford, GM, The list of large corporations goes on and on. But Fox News sure told about it.
And that was to the lowest employee. The laborers that we call “Roustabouts” here in the Oil&Gas Industry. And the $$$$$ up accordingly so to your ranking /standing in the company. GM got $4000. My level, VP Which is division managers, each one received $7,500.
And we are a privately held family-owned Oil&Gas “Construction Company,” with 388 full time employees. We don’t hire any, any
part-time employees. Ever.
You should know this, here in the United States we have certain online entities that keep track of all TV 📺 News Corporations, and the amount of air-time they put into shows and topics.
The first two years of President Trump’s presidency & his administration all 5 TV news corporations that are labeled the NNC= Network News Cabal, ABC CBS NBC CNN MSDNC All of them put no more than 30 minutes telling the American people how good of an economy we had. But Fox 🦊 News did and so did OAN=One America News. Per ” Pew Research.”
And concerning ratings in the amount of people that watch shows, CNN Has been averaging daily no more than 700,000 people where Fox 🦊 News has been averaging over 4 million.
I’m very glad you are doing so well.
However I have checked my facts and I quote from Wikipedia. :
“In 2018, and for the first time in U.S. history, U.S. billionaires paid a lower effective tax rate than the working class. A study found that the average effective tax rate paid by the richest 400 families in the country was 23 percent, a full percentage point lower than the 24.2 percent rate paid by the bottom half of American households.[44][45]
In September 2019, the Census Bureau reported that income inequality in the United States had reached its highest level in 50 years, with the GINI index increasing from 48.2 in 2017 to 48.5 in 2018.[46].”
I’m sure other sources are available.
FWIW I’m not left-wing, but I think inequality in excess matters.
23%of 100s of billions generated by the 400 richest is not nothing.
“Politics is downstream from culture”
The effort for system wide overthrow is directed at culture, the politics follow.
I think that’s a fair point as a specific rule about parties/governments perhaps, but in terms of wider ‘mainstream’ viewpoints – the left wing views are most certainly dominant.
We have a strange scenario where the most influential corporations are now allied with left wing orthodoxy. The former due to globalisation, the latter reinforcing the former as it seeks to not be racist – i.e. critical of anything outside of the nation in question.
Corporations are falling over themselves to appear anti racist, pro LGBT, pro green, which allies them with the viewpoints of most on the left, who have gradually become ever more intolerant of any deviation from a binary viewpoint. Many on the left are so convinced that they are in the right 100% on any of these issues that any variance from the mainstream projected “truths” from the media, celebrity and many of the professional classes, is met with fury.
The right wing governments, leaders and populists are a direct result of people seeking answers elsewhere. And it’s not a good thing necessarily. For others people like Peterson speak more sense on such topics than decades of soundbites, virtue signals and editorials.
“Corporations are falling over themselves” in a fit of nothing short of cowardice.
That analysis is flawed because left and right politics traditionally described notions of government versus free market approach to economics, authoritarian versus liberalism, progressive versus conservative. What has currently come to the fore is a new progressive liberalism which predominates in Western Europe that supports free market economics,is progressive socially, is both liberal and authoritarian according to which side of the fence you sit socially. That is what many now describe as Left Wing though the parties in power may not be known as such.
There are also other forms of power other than government. Media and corporate for example. Corporations once considered right wing because they are profit driven now see advantage in supporting and flaunting their new socially left wing credentials enabling a free pass from many who were once their fiercest critics. Similar applies to the world of media and entertainment, the morality of their fame and wealth once a target of the left but now fully in step with their social agenda.
Indeed even cowardice pays.
Considering the carnage in their wake,leftwing govts should not even exist..but as their ‘project’ is necessarily interminable it just shapeshifts with the times…hence trans rights amongst the confetti of victimhood…its f…king endless.
The world definitely needs Jordan Peterson, and Douglas Murray and the other sane voices that still have the moral courage to search for and speak the truth and push back against the woke ideologues who seem determined to destroy western civilisation. I would love Douglas Murray to write a book explaining to young people the benefits of western civilisation and it’s ideas like rationalism, liberal democracy, capitalism, property rights, the rule of law and freedom of conscience, thought, expression and religion – how they give people freedom and choice and offer the best way for anyone to reach their full potential and also give dignity and equal worth to every individual. Most older people take this for granted but proponents of postmodern neo-Marxist ideas ““ e.g. divisive, antagonistic identity politics and ‘Social Justice’ theories like Critical Race Theory are indoctrinating our children and young people to believe western civilisation is so horrible we need to burn it all down and start again and are turning them into angry, miserable, resentful activists.(after all happy people don’t want a revolution).
I think you could make a good job of that book.
You should probably have a look at Niall Ferguson’s Civilization, although it’s from 2011. I haven’t read it but I saw the TV series and it definitely covers the benefits of western civilisation, although it’s probably too early to have much woke-bashing. The last chapter of Lindsey and Pluckrose’s Cynical Theories might help there
Douglas Murray starts to give us a spot on explanation but stops short of assigning blame. His statement “The world is in an exceptionally confused and bewildering state at the moment” describes our situation. It is Dr. Peterson who understands why this is so and teaches us that we are OK, and we have within us what we need to be OK. The confusion and bewilderment is a result of decades of the Cultural Marxist assault on what makes Western society strong. The Cultural Marxists attack the family unit, the male as father figure, protector, and provider. They attack the female as mother figure care giver and nurturer, and religion. Professor Peterson recognizes the problem and has identified the enemy of Western civilization. It is the Left. We must reject Cultural Marxism and all its vile accusations. We are not what the Left has been telling us for decades.
You nailed it, PERFECTLY MY FRIEND!!
Thank you!
I found it fascinating that he was decried for appealing to ’embittered incels’. Surely, someone ought to be trying to give some guidance to those very people? And to caution against self-pity and childishness and promote a worldview which favours responsibility and self-improvement would seem to be a positive thing to do.
The disconnect between what Peterson actually says and what is written about him is bizarre. He was called alt-right, despite being vocally disgusted by their views. It seemed that all you had to do was cast some vague aspersions on his character and some newspaper would publish it as a take-down. As someone who read his book and watched a few of his lectures, I found it very weird to see the interesting, although idiosyncratic, stoicism he was talking about being described in the press as some kind of new Mein Kampf.
Peterson: “If you can’t even clean up your own room, who the hell are you to give advice to the world?”
Far Left: “This is a classic ‘blame the victim’ argument used by alt-Right Fascists to deflect from the fact that centuries of systemic racism have denied many the ability to clean their own rooms and not only that, to blindly dismiss that the very idea of cleaning one’s room is an imperialist White construct historically used to suppress the existence of those with an alternate ‘lived experience’.
Yeah, so when you look at it that way ………
What’s sad is how believable your caricature of the left’s argument is. It does not require much imagination to hear those words being said.
Most revealing in such comments is the part about “imperialist white construct” to describe what most people see as commonplace behavior, as if the non-white groups are incapable of that. The left ignores its own bigotry in the effort to accuse everyone else of indulging it.
Peterson’s homespun example serves to drive his message on the damage caused by the abrogation of personal responsibility.
Thomas Sowell offers a similar version when discussing the plight of the failing black inner cities.
The Grievance Industry, that sundry assortment of opportunistic politicians, bureaucrats, educators and mini-Me Marxists hold the mantra of “It’s not your fault” above all else.
It’s the only way to justify and perpetuate their existence.
It’s shameful because so many are watching the SS Opportunity sail out of sight because these self-serving carpetbaggers swore there was no space for them.
Instead they’re left holding worthless tickets on the SS Justice which will arrive “any day now – we promise!”.
The bigotry of low expectations.
Is that Far Left quote implying that black people don’t have untidy rooms, or that if they do and tidy them then they are acting as supplicants to white supremacist constructs?
Yes. They have internalized whiteness. They need to rediscover the historical black roots of unkempt rooms.
made me laugh out loud btw, thanks for that.x
1000upticks!
He was the heretic amid the true believers when it came to pronouns. Therefore, he had to be metaphorically burned at the stake.
I know. It’s so obvious that you’d have to be blinded by bitterness to think that he “he appeals to incels” is an impressive argument.
But this kind of double-standard – because his critics would, of course, claim to be concerned about the marginalised ““ is everywhere. People say men should not try to be macho by bottling up their emotions but openly mock any male adversary of theirs who shows vulnerability. They complain about gaslighting while being the most shameless gaslighters out there. Furious about stereotyping and prejudice but so keen to proclaim “white fragility”.
The contempt shown for incels comes from different sources. Feminists see them not as pitiful or amongst the losers in life’s lottery, but as arrogant men who think they are ‘entitled’ to sex with a woman. They demonize them through association with the likes of Eliot Roger and consider them rapists and killers in waiting. That viewpoint, however unfair, is then supported generally by feminist men, but also by insecure but not quite loser men who are only too happy to be rid of other men who might compete for the affections of women.
It was precisely this discrepancy between what JBP was saying and how he was being represented in the media that, for me, was the “red pill” moment: the moment when I realized just how distorted a worldview was being presented to me by the likes of the NY Times and so on.
Welcome my friend. Welcome.
I am a septuagenarian who has been fatherless since age
seven. Even though I am near the end of
my life, and very far from the young boy rendered fatherless at such a tender
age, Jordan Peterson has provided me
with the fathering I never received – and desperately needed – for many dark
decades. Thank you, Dr. Peterson, and Godspeed.
That says a lot about how deeply his message resonates. I am older too and had a good father, but as with anyone, there were gaps in my education, and Peterson often says things I wish I understood from a younger age, and might have had my father possessed a greater capacity to impart what wisdom he had.
And god bless you John.
I had been contemplating the sheer enforced inanity of the Trans- gender ideology and the viscous Trans activist hit squad that nailed a dead rat to the door of a women’s refuge they were targeting in Canada. The rabid insistence that any who refuse to state `the lie` that a man who says he is a woman is a woman) are enemies to to be attacked. It struck me that to give in to this ridiculous group think bullying and publicly agree would effectively be surrendering ones moral compass and any sense of self respect. To attempt to escape this fate by remaining silent would still engender the sniveling acquiescence of moral cowardice. It put me in mind of the cinema audiences in Germany from 1932 onwards sitting in darkened silence as the anti- Jewish propaganda trailers of the Nazis unrelentingly portrayed the Jews as little more than disgusting insects to be crushed. Was there ever a person who stood up and yelled at the obscener lies of this `politically correct` anti semetic poisen audiences were being exposed to?
Professor Paterson and his refusal to accept the Canadian governments woke trans dikat to enforce what words he must use seemed to me to be that one person finally standing up and calling out this imposed speech crime as WRONG and publicly stated his refusal to comply. We all will face this eventually as silent acquiescence is soon to be deemed a political refusal to submit to to the latest sordid ideological orthodoxy being rammed down our throat . The trans – activists and BLM are one and the same and those who submit become complicit in the moral destruction of both themselves and our free societies just as those silent Germans during the 1930`s became complicit in the Holocaust.
Professor Paterson is to be commended for highlighting the choice we will be forced to make.
I didn’t realize how low the left had sunk until I read the response of several of the woke to Peterson’s point about hierarchies.
According to the left, hierarchy is a “social construct” as gender is claimed to be. Unfortunately for the left and their naive blank-slate theory of human nature, many other species besides humans create hierarchies, not only our nearest relatives, the primates, but even creatures as far removed from us as lobsters.
Now this point makes it perfectly clear that not everything about society can be the result of “social constructs”, that some aspects of the social organization of many species, including our own, are in fact evolutionary constructs (including gender).
But rather than acknowledging that Peterson had just demolished a fundamental tenet of left wing beliefs, the critics howled with childish glee, claiming that Peterson was advocating the notion that humans should live like lobsters.
His point, of course, was merely to demonstrate that if a creature as far removed from us as lobsters formed hierarchies, then it is obvious that we too might do so for biological, not social reasons.
When I read these absurd arguments against Peterson’s position, I realized that the radical left had lost any pretensions they may have had to intellectual honesty, and were willing to slander Peterson rather than respond rationally to his point. The sad thing is that political correctness and the social justice mob make this discussion now off limits.
I agree with quite a bit that Peterson says but regard myself as quite left wing. The way people talk it’s as if this is not possible. Politically though I’m never quite sure what Peterson thinks. Does he support Trump? Surely not! He has said some slightly dumb things about climate change, but I agree with him on the anti-woke stuff. In some respects people expect a kind of messiah- poor bloke is not going to be able to deliver on that!
I agree, but if he’s so evidence-based it’s concerning that he has come out with “slightly dumb things” about climate change.
He asked questions and raised doubt instead of walking a party line where the far far majority do not understand any of the details… Being sceptical is always smart and never dumb.
You might want to look at his interview with Lomberg.
I haven’t heard anything “dumb” about his views on Climate Change-anything specific you are referencing?-what he has pointed out is the complete absence of any rigorous scientific method in what has increasingly become a politicised argument rather than a scientific one.The dumbest thing I ever heard about climate change was Obama and”the science is settled”..I mean..wtf!!!!No wonder he was a lawyer!
Spotted any similarities with Sars Covid 2 and “the science” -as referenced by a bunch of public school educated PPE Graduates!!!
Surely the science is settled on man made climate change. Of course there are always people who will question the details, but if you really want to argue that man-made climate change is still a open question, you really have to move into conspiracy theory territory. But even if there was some doubt, the precautionary principle would suggest we ought not to ignore it.
It seems for some (Very much a US thing) climate change is political – but why can’t you be conservative and accept man-made climate change is happening? In fact environmentalism use to be a conservative issue – really don’t understand why it is seen as ‘leftwing’
Never understand why when I mention Trump everyone starts on Obama. I have no particular opinions on Obama, but Trump supports seem obsessed with the guy. Think it says something about their psychology. What it’s not is rational debate.
Surely the science is settled on man made climate change.
Said no scientist ever. Especially about a theory and this remains but a theory. Ironically, a theory that does not allow falsification, which actually makes it the opposite of science and more like religion.
why can’t you be conservative and accept man-made climate change is happening?
You can accept that, but the left requires you to also accept the claim that it is an existential threat from which govt must save us. Really? Govt can barely manage potholes, but I’m supposed to believe it has the know-how to manage climate. Based on what?
Why can’t you be progressive and accept that this is a theory, that since 1880, the average surface temp has changed by about one degree. One degree. The level of panic seems grossly disproportionate.
Ok lots to be said on this. BTW I was always told that a theory, unlike a hypothesis IS backed by good evidence. Anyway, given we can never have complete certainty, do you at least accept that continuing to burn fossil fuels at the rate we are doing is reckless?
A theory also allows for its hypothesis to be falsified. That’s not so with climate change. The only accepted variable in the equation is that whatever is occurring is man-made. That’s not science, it’s faith.
As to your question, let’s take it at face value. What is govt going to do about it? What consequences might accrue from that action? There is such a thing as the cure being worse than the disease. Abundant, cheap energy has been a godsend to places trying to climb out of grinding poverty.
JP is skeptical about the existential threat of climate change to humanity, even more so about “10 years to Armageddon”, as now evidenced in leading climate change man’s book False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet
(by Bjørn Lomborg).
How would you change the way of the world that 20yrs ago you would have supported whole heartedly .
What makes you think the science is settled? Surely not the bogus (and thoroughly debunked) claims that there’s a scientific consensus? This is an emerging science and it’s far too soon to make any such grandiose claims as it being ‘settled’. There’s still much empirical evidence to be gathered before the extremely speculative results of computer modelling can be considered verified. You don’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to understand that the scientific endeavour requires constant questioning, testing and course-correction,
Forgive me for saying so, but you seem to have a poor opinion of anyone whose stance diverges from your own; anyone who questions man-made climate change must be a conspiracy theorist and anyone who supports Trump is obsessed. While there may be such people in both camps, there’s a great deal of diversity of opinion within them too. Maybe you should explore their reasoning a little more thoroughly before blithely dismissing them.
Let’s have a look at what scientists actually say.
https://science.sciencemag….
https://www.ucsusa.org/clim…
https://www.cbsnews.com/new…
There are still plenty of reputable scientists in the field who contest the so-called ‘consensus’. As such, it doesn’t matter how many statements are issued by scientific bodies (who, might I add, rarely canvas the views of their members before issuing such declarations), there is not a consensus. (By the way, the Union of Concerned Scientists is not a credible source – it’s a politically biased organisation.)
‘what he has pointed out is the complete absence of any rigorous scientific method’
Which in itself shows his ignorance of scientific method. But then again, if he believes in a God, I am not surprised.
“
Which in itself shows his ignorance of scientific method.”How so?
Having been trained by physicists I’m confident science is never settled.
Ever heard of caloric? Several hundred years ago the settled science of thermodynamics was that heat was transferred in the form of particles which could cross over between objects placed next to each other. The fact that it was a settled theory made progress impossible, as scientific thinking became imprisoned in the caloric “box”.
It took an engineer in the Austrian? armoury to develop the principle of conservation of energy and the model of energy exchange between heat, kinetic, potential energy etc.
But at heart I’m an engineer – to me it’s irrelevant whether climate change is man-made. If there is climate change and it’s not man-made it still needs to be addressed. And that means changes to human behaviour. There is a success (ish) story we can point to, the detection, stabilization, and now slow correction of the southern hemisphere ozone hole.
However what I find really difficult about the climate debate is the politicization. Instead of humanity analyzing the problem to establish mitigation strategies, hysteria is whipped up and pre-existing ideological wagons are being harnessed to the hysteria.
Needs to be dealt with if it is happening. That is true. But if it is not clear what is causing it, you have to improve response, not try prevention because you may be looking in the wrong places. All the rhetoric and effort is towards prevention, which will be wasted if we have the cause wrong. Same for a whole pile of complex societal problems currently being foolishly over simplified
Yes, although I do think man is having an impact. What is unclear to me is how much of an impact and whether prevention makes sense given there be may be huge underlying changes that we simply cannot deal with. But I’m with Mark H on mitigation strategies. They need to be based on things we do know about such as pollution, ecology, energy uses, population and so on. Balanced by the need to feed and house people as well as providing people with a modicum of security and healthcare.
Why has he said something dumb about climate change? Because it doesn’t fit into today’s so-called “follow the science” argument. As with COVID there are plenty of opposing scientific arguments. Is it man made or is it a change which is naturally occurring throughout the planet’s history. Look up talks with professors Lindzen and Curry, if google hasn’t wiped them off the internet.
No-one interested in facts, as distinct from US culture wars, believes that there are “plenty of opposing scientific arguments” on climate change.
It’s revealing that you link Covid to climate change denial.
I am not a climate change denier, but I am doubtful that it is man made. There are many scientists who don’t agree that man made CO2 which is 0.003% of atmospheric gases is responsible for climate warming. The problem is if you only google climate change, you have to sift through pages to find opposite views.
Anyway, that doesn’t have anything to do with Peterson, who just talked about a more realistic approach to climate warming when somebody asked him . He thought that Lomberg’s rational plan made more sense than putting up extremely inefficient and expensive windmills and solar panels.
I think his political stance is quite clear -an