Yes – 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
‘…….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.
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.)
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.
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.
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?
croftyass
3 years ago
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.
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.
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?
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!
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…
“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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 “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.
Do you live as if there is only material reality? I’m guessing that you don’t.
John Cotton
3 years ago
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
ky.cao
3 years ago
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fiona E
3 years ago
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).
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
Chuck Burns
3 years ago
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.
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’.
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!”.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
John Jones
3 years ago
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.
Martin Butler
3 years ago
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!
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 -and like a lot of people doesn’t easily slot into a pre defined definition-another reason I identify with him.I’m “quite right wing” but my interpretation of that is not necessarily that of a momentum member!I’m economically liberal but view the state as having an important role,socially conservative but support equality of opportunity & access-I suppose I’m a Conservative but don’t recognise that in the current Government .I accept that Trump is a deeply flawed human being but also that he has a valid mandate and has achieved more in certain areas than many of his lauded predecessors-the Abraham Accord is a truly significant event in Middle East Politics -Obama received the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people” which is about as weak a resume as you can find for any award.
In one of his many videos (sorry I can’t recall exactly which one) Peterson opined that the Left-Right issue was a hierarchal struggle with the two sides always rubbing against each other. In his view (at least as I understood it) the struggle for balance between the two is how we advance as a society. It also keeps the fringes in check. Both must exist for the system to work but go too far Left or Right and you ruin the balance and cause chaos. Peterson’s opinion is that the Left has no defined fringe. If Left is Good, Far Left is Better and right now we’re enduring a certain amount of chaos because of it, ie; Wokeness/Cancel Culture etc etc.
I have no idea if he personally supports Trump and I’m certainly not an authority on Peterson’s work, but I’m guessing that according to his theories presented thus far he would view Trump not as the Left does – as an unwelcome intruder from the Right – but rather a societal need to restore balance disturbed by the Left in the first place. Trump is a result – not a cause. Trump’s carefree truth-bending, boorishness and erraticism are taken as read, but “voters must be stupid” isn’t why he’s POTUS certainly not why the Left wants him gone.
Yes I kind of agree with this. Although the idea that Trump will help the little guy is deluded. Also there are two quite different ‘lefts’. There is the left of the university campus cancel culture, identity politics, etc, which is just awful. Here I totally agree with GP. But there is the economic left who believes that economic inequality is getting extreme and we need to do something. It is the left that wants to curb the excessive power of global corporations, and believes that tax havens and massive tax avoidance needs tackling. This is the good left!
IMO, the real battle is between Globalism and Nationalism. Of course globalism serves the usual suspects like Big Money but it also serves the ‘bad Left’ such as the Climate Change movement and those that support wealth redistribution and unfettered human migration. Strange bedfellows. The ‘good Left’ as you describe it – the Left that pursues things like a ‘living wage’ would best be served by nationalist policies such as stronger union rights or tariffs on cheap imported goods. The Left – both sides – have been unable to reconcile these inconsistencies within their own sphere. Burning coal is bad for the planet, ergo coal mining is bad. So what do unemployed coal miners do? Other countries are still happily mining coal. There are lots of unemployed coal miners that we’re trying to find gainful employment for so let’s open the borders because migration is a human right? That’s a conundrum that has cost the Left dearly at the ballot box. They can’t satisfy globalists without offending nationalists and vice versa. In 2016 the Dems decided to ignore the Deplorables and lost simply because Trump recognized these people exist. The fact that he did little or nothing to help doesn’t matter. The Dems shunted Sanders aside not once, but twice. His platform like Corbyn’s Labour, was Marxism-Lite and had the wokesters all excited – finally we’ll make Big Money squeak – but if they had thought about it for a moment they would have realized that the putting the squeeze on Big Money required adoption of protectionist policies. ie; Nationalism.
Coal miners… currently 50,000, down from 850,000 in the twenties, and you actually think that tiny number can’t find jobs elsewhere? 20 times that number are filing new unemployment claims weekly due to Covid. In short, great soundbite, but statistically not a rounding error.
Sorry – it was just meant as a theoretical example – to make the point that dumping a resource economy in favour of climate change has consequences. But having said that. Some of those miners/steel workers/autoworkers may be skilled tradesman but mostly not. Should they compete for jobs with unskilled immigrants? Globalism Do we need to curtail immigration until these people are back on their feet? Nationalism Or is it all OK – there are enough good ‘living wage’ jobs for everyone? The ‘deplorables’ were asking these questions – and they are legitimate questions- and the Dems labeled them deplorables and xenophobes for their trouble. FWIW, social activist filmmaker Michael Moore detests Trump – obviously – but he says the Democrats still refuse to admit they blew the election by spitting on the people that have always supported them.
” FWIW, social activist filmmaker Michael Moore detests Trump – obviously – but he says the Democrats still refuse to admit they blew the election by spitting on the people that have always supported them.” “”””””””””””””””””””””
And why did Michael Moore do this? Because he’s born and raised in blue collar Michigan. His family members made their living working blue-collar jobs in auto factories. He may live in Southern California and rub shoulders with the Hollywood stars and directors, but as he says often,
“Even though I drink my beer out of Crystal nowadays I’m still at Bubba at heart.” Something else I’ve read that he has said often.
I shall paraphrase him.
“Your garden-variety wealthy white collar Californian wouldn’t know a blue-collar steel worker pipefitter, pipeline welder, oilfield roughneck if one of them walked up and stuck out his hand ðŸ–, and said shake hands with a such and such.
To them blue collar is the illegal Mexicans that cut their grass and rake their yard on a regular basis. And they work for a white man that owns the lawn care company because even though he pays a decent wage of $20 an hour he can’t even hire a born & raised white or black young man.
Because they’re too lazy to leave their parents house to take these jobs. And back when I was coming up young whites and blacks did them.”
People from ‘somewhere’ vs. people from ‘anywhere’. The latter are eager to deny and erase the former. That is virtue.The former want the latter reigned in for the sake of their own virtue. IMO, the ‘somewheres’ have a more balanced perspective.
Strictly speaking, he is POTUS because the US electoral system allows the candidate who won fewer votes to be anointed as the winner. And that’s despite vote suppression in Republican-controlled states.
What voter suppression? I keep hearing this shop-worn talking point being treated as an article of faith with no evidence to back it up. Voter ID is often used as an example, as if certain populations are incapable of securing IDs. They’re not and it’s a bad red herring of an argument anyway considering the litany of far less important things for which ID is required.
The electoral system works perfectly. Because it keeps the “Tyrannical Masses” from running roughshod over the smaller population.
The foundation fathers where brilliant and nearly all of the founding fathers were very familiar with these kind of people because most of them came from England.
They were very familiar with a tyrannical government. And with tyrannical people. If things was reversed to suit you and your ilk, America would be run by the village idiot left out of California and NYC.
Re: Climate Change Again in one of his videos Peterson did knock the Climate Change movement because from the scientific perspective you can’t measure outcomes if you don’t have defined goals. It’s like a beauty contestant claiming “I want world peace”. How nice. What exactly is the definition of “world peace”? Who exactly has the authority to define the specifics in the first place? How exactly will we be able to measure and determine when “world peace” has been attained? If you can’t answer these questions then you can’t form a plan and without a plan you can’t get anything done. IMO, Peterson’s response explains why the Climate Change movement loudly insists on immediate action, often with real and serious economic side effects but then offers nebulous and varying opinions as to degree of success many decades down the road, when people like Gore and Greta will likely be pub quiz History questions.
So you KNOW that people expect a Messiah? How about people are being crushed,&villified with their country turning into a cesspit before their very eyes..fearful for their childrens well being..inc the possibility of being blown up at an Ariadne Grande concert..amongst other horrors(Rotherham)…all thanks to leftist ideology. They’re NOT looking for a messiah but they’d dearly love their country to be safe&to function as it used to in their own lifetime..
You super left wing fell off the edge years ago!! So definitely not working CLASS
Derek Boyes
3 years ago
Irrelevant of what people think of his ideas, I respect Jordan Peterson enormously as a human being. Throughout this never-ending controversial media storm that he has found himself in, he has been extremely tolerant, respectful and professional. On top of this, his emotional openness and the devoted bond he shares with his family, is testament of his upstanding character.
I personally find his thoughts and ideas deeply fascinating to listen to and back in 2017, he was the only person I could find online, who could explain to me this rapid and widening division in western society that I now know is the result of an insane postmodern Identity Politics. It took several other authors (Douglas Murray, Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, Jonathan Haidt and Debra Soh to name a few) to fully comprehend it all, but Dr Peterson was my first teacher and for that I am indebted to him.
That said, I’m ashamed to admit that I am still too scared to praise him openly to my friends on the left, because of the stigma generated by all the false accusations from the radical left. I loathe this self-righteous ignorance that blinds the left into accepting such radical indoctrination that CT has fed mainstream liberalism. The fight is far from over, but there is at least growing evidence this year, that the message is starting to get through. Dr Peterson deserves to be recognised by mainstream society for his courage, reason and intellectual rigor in standing up to such a dangerous ideology.
I’m really pleased to see he’s back home and on the road to recovery and when the time is right, I look forward to hearing his thoughts on this year’s unpredictable developments and what new insights he’s been able to unravel about the human psyche.
Your first couple of paragraphs express (better than I could have) my own opinion and experience of Peterson.
He has my well wishes in his current pursuits. I know he was very disappointed that the Cambridge arrangement did not work out but I think what he is doing now is much better. I suspect that seeking to understand Exodus at Cambridge would be as fruitful as looking for the meaning of life in postmodernism.
Diana Durham
3 years ago
Yes I agree, and thank you for the article and the overview. It was through listening to Peterson that I first became aware of the madness and deceitfulness of the woke culture wars in universities, I was still living in the US at the time, and had no idea this wave of ideology was happening in Canada, and even less of the extent it had impacted Britain. I agree that the majority of his critics have not actually listened to him or taken on board what he says. He is very well informed along certain lines, and very interesting and open-minded. And he has the quality that cynical intellectualism hates which is earnestness and a genuine desire to be honest to the best of his ability. He was not trying to ‘take down’ the Channel 4 interviewer Cathy Newman, he was simply being himself. It’s just that honesty and earnestness, and having something to say that is somewhat original or at least not the same well-worn cliches came as a shock to the media system. I agree also that the appeal he has to many younger men should make the cynical intellectual class take note. Mentorship is important, and if he is drawing that kind of thoughtful and deep response, it is insulting to those thousands of men (and women) to suggest the only reason is because they are duped.
Athena Jones
3 years ago
This is an excellent article and yes, many of us do believe Peterson has much to offer.
Roland Powell
3 years ago
Good news. I wish Peterson luck and health.
frances heywood
3 years ago
‘critics primarily on the ideological Left claimed that Peterson was some kind of fringe alt-right figure…..’ Nick Cohen did just that, in a recent article. Having watched a few of Peterson’s TV appearances and lectures, before he became ill, I think that is a ludicrous assertion. Pity, because I greatly enjoyed Cohen’s books ‘ What’s Left’ and ‘You can’t read this book’.
Ian SN
3 years ago
His destruction of Cathy Newman was one of the best things Ive seen, get him on with Beff and Andrew Marrxist, what a treat that would be
His destruction of Cathy Newman was one of the best things Ive seen
Yeah, I still smile when my memory of it is jogged (usually by people in online discussions replying to someone’s argument with dishonest insinuations: “So what you’re saying is that poor people should be left to die…” I often contribute the “Hi, Cathy Newman, and welcome to the discussion” line. It’s hackneyed, I know, but Newman was such a perfect public example of a complete failure to engage with what someone is actually saying that it’s still apt.)
Indeed. One of the most striking consequences of that particular spat was the failure on her part and on the part of the Channel 4 authorities to realise that she had made a complete fool of herself. When, several days after the initial broadcast, Channel 4 posted the complete interview online, they did so in the belief that this would vindicate her. That is what tends to happen on the woke side of culture ” because of the ideological conformity to groupthink, there is a profound lack of self-awareness. I have observed the same thing when, commenting on that interview and on other events of that kind to woke-inclined friends and family, they completely fail to see what a total intellectual and moral disaster that interview was.
Mark Lilly
3 years ago
I personally find JP’s arguments and outlook quite persuasive, even if told in a rather unattractive and arrogant way. However, anyone familiar with the hundreds of interviews and lectures available online will be aware of three failings: first, he is frequently wholly incoherent, starting and restarting sentences in a garbled mess of obscurity and never getting to the end. Secondly, when asked about God, his answers are complete gibberish. He defends himself by saying, ‘it all depends on what you mean by god’ This is of course true, but when the questioner goes on to answer this her/himself, JP wanders off into obscurity again. Obscurity is the screen behind which hides intellectual mediocrity. Thirdly, although constantly boasting assertively about his scientific expertise – ‘I DO know’ he frequently snaps at skeptics – he is completely ignorant about academic fields the understanding of which is essential in order to pronouce on the subjects he has chosen to write about: moral philosophy (my own area) and the social sciences. I would hesitate before labelling JP a fraud. A proper estimate is that he is a talented pundit who is often right – and often wrong..
It is a weird but predictable feature of this story that he has found a supporter in Douglas Murray. It fits with the astonishing eulogy offered by DM on the death of his ‘longtime’ mentor and friend Roger Scruton. The gay DM seems perfectly at ease lavishly praising the man who writes (in ‘Sexual Desire’): ” It is perfectly appropriate for children to be encouraged to view homosexuality with revulsion.” [sic] This is ‘tolerance’ with a vengeance.
not sure it does at all. While I disagree with most of the late Scruton’s conclusions (but not his taste in classical music) he did know how to articulate a philosphical argument
Scruton wrote Sexual Desire in the mid 1980s. I am not going to claim it was ‘another era’, but we’re talking 35 years ago and a fair criticism would seek to know if his views had since been revised.
No evidence of any change. Still radically ‘eccentric’ – see (on youtube) the fairly recent 90 minute interview Scruton gave to Dutch tv, which includes S talking about the thrill [sic] of hunting foxes to death. He specifically revels in the rituals of death. Nothing mealy-mouthed there. Also, Murray claims he knew Scruton for a very long time – i.e. including during the period of his book’s publication. My main point of course was the fact that Murray, who rightly denounces the new ‘madness’ of political correctness, just happens to be particularly allied with extremists of the right, including Heffer, C Moore, Melanie Phillips (twice voted Homophobe of the Year by Stonewall.) et al.
You know why that might be? Because you are mistaken in thinking because he associates with people, he is ‘allied’ with them. Perhaps he is not an ideologue, respects free thought and is able to form friendships without demanding intellectual conformity. He’s a civilized person, in other words. Practicing what he preaches.
I do believe that he has these qualities you enumerate. But there is something extreme in the particular case. Thought experiment: is it not unprecedented for an individual to sit down in jocular bonhomie with someone who has publicly stated that he is ‘disgusting’ (same with his interview with the oafish homophobe Dennis Prager) ? Try this out, mutatis mutandis, with racial examples.
Loved you first para. And illustrated imo in his “debate” with Zizek.
Andrew Baldwin
3 years ago
Thank you for your tribute to Canada’s most famous intellectual, Douglas. I haven’t watched them to the end yet, but Jordan Peterson’s lectures on the Book of Genesis are wonderful. I hope that he is able to produce a similar set of lectures on Exodus as he plans to do. He rambles almost comically off topic in many of his lectures, but that, at least for me, is part of their charm.
garlandremingtoniii
3 years ago
Jordan Peterson show just how truly stupid and incorrigibly belligerent the left truly is. But more so, he showed us that have common sense and believe in him How dangerous, truly “Dangerous” the left truly is. Here in the United States it was A-OK for BLM= “Black Looters Matter” to have riots and tear up, tear down over 30 large downtown cities.
Not even our federal CDC, the Center for Disease Control would come out and speak out against thousands of them spreading the Chinese virus while they rioted and physically attacked our local police and innocent citizens.
(elderly men and women just trying to cross the street and some of them in wheelchairs. All because they white!!!!!! You bet this pisses me off. But they only done this in democrat controlled cities. They wouldn’t dare come to places like here in Montana. Our town we had a billboard put up warning them and ANTIFA If they showed up they would be met by ARMED FORCE.)
And yet the same “August Intellectuals” spoke out against people going to church. That’s right because of the virus. Spoke out against opening businesses. That’s right because of the virus. And yet 5000 people could come together and tear down a city under the disguise of “marching peacefully ” which was a flat out lie, pushed by CNN, against there President, Trump.
John Simpson
3 years ago
Indeed welcome back to the professor and I hope his health and his wife’s health continue to improve. He is the only person to really make sense of Genesis for me. Exodus will also be very interesting but I will be delighted if he ever tackles the New Testament in a similar way in particular Revelation. I have no doubt that he is a Christian but I think he has stripped almost all church ritual and tradition from it.
LCarey Rowland
3 years ago
This is good news! Thank you, Douglas, for posting it.
crawford mackenzie
3 years ago
“It is to their long-term detriment that they failed to consider this deeper question: that Peterson spoke to such a wide array of listeners because he was hovering right over the questions of meaning and purpose, which almost everyone else in our society had decided to abandon. Including, but by no means limited to, the Church.” This is damming but true.
borrieboy
3 years ago
The way the smug Left elitists and Post Modern “progressives” go after Peterson tells you that he’s rumbled them and uncovered their hypocritical, narrow-minded and destructive views. I doubt few, if any, of his critics have even bothered to read any of his output or watched his interviews/lectures. The simple question one might ask oneself is: if you found yourself in a post apocalyptic world and there was one person that you could have at your side, would that person be Peterson or Foucault?
Gary Miles
3 years ago
Being an atheist I am not over fond of Mr Peterson’s thinking on a number of topics but it is always good to welcome back someone who can argue a case with good sense, good manners and good grace. Reading the comments below, though, makes me think that perhaps the continued expansion of atheism has led to to a kind of quasi political religion where people (often not equipped with Mr Peterson’s sense, manners and grace) feel they can cast judgement with impunity to whomever they disagree with. As some bloke once said – let he who is without sin throw the first stone.
Richard Slack
3 years ago
I think a have just disturbed a gathering of a cult
It’s the complete opposite of a cult – unless you think rational scientific thought is a cult. I think you need to see some of his videos. Plenty out there on youtube.
Yes it is, you just need to look. And to exercise judgement as to what is credible and what is not. Accepting that there is a huge amount of rubbish out there there is also an amazing amount of really good stuff.
Lyn Griffiths
3 years ago
In response to the article and with Mr. Peterson in mind. I believe that we all instinctively know what is right and what is wrong 99.9 of the time. Though we are born with a complex mind that through genetics can turn what is thought and communally accepted as the right path. Into a thought pattern not understood and that can wreak havoc amongst humanity. When to know, the generated ancestry of genetics in its imperceptibility can create unexplained havoc of thought to run riot through centuries of human existence. Where now there is a need to bring about, and to expose one mind set and exemplify it by another to mark good from bad. Where I from a very young age and without being tutored up to that time, naturally believed in reincarnation and we to be from spirit, and will return to spirit to begin a new existence on another path until we reach perfection, but my problem, I cannot see for what purpose? But with this awareness of others, I should be kind to all mankind and animals and to believe in fairness to all. So to believe in a God does not sit well in my thought patterns. But if god keeps a person on the straight and narrow, so not to do physical or mental harm to one another that is all we as humans communally can ask for in this life of contradiction.
You express an interesting viewpoint Lyn. I think that if there is a God, he must matter. The idea of a God who doesn’t matter is not rational. If there is no God, the God cannot matter.
His fresh suggestion to live one’s life ‘as if God existed’, whether he does or doesn’t is an interesting one. Much possible interpretation there as to how that plays out but, as a pure embodiment of our “better angels” without the worshipping carry-on, it’s worth exploring (and I have no belief in gods and never shall have).
It’s a good argument, familiar since the C17 as Pascal’s wager. Put another way, if it looks like rain, no harm in taking an umbrella
Colin Haller
3 years ago
I first encountered Peterson when he was a quasi-regular panelist on a current events show on our provincial educational television broadcaster in Ontario, where he would appear to opine based upon his work in clinical psychology. It prompted me to read his 1999 work (read by hundreds, maybe?) “Maps of Meaning” which while a challenging read was a serious work of scholarship. Then for a while he stopped appearing on the show and I wondered why that might be. When he did return briefly a couple of years later (remotely rather than in studio as he had in the past) there was something different about him and he looked frankly unwell. He hasn’t appeared on the show since, which must be almost 7 years or so ago.
Subsequently I would read about him in the Toronto press — there were public conflicts with students over pronoun usage, and his rise as an internet phenomenon.
I agree that the world needs him, but I think the him it needs is no longer with us.
Stu White
3 years ago
I like Peterson, though I thought quite a bit of 12 Rules wasn’t great. However it certainly made me realise things about myself. Particularly the section on truth. Glad he’s back on form!
Stephen Wikner
3 years ago
I – like many others, I suspect – am pleased to read this and, indeed, to see Prof Peterson’s own video. I do wonder, however – based on the way he appeared in the video – whether he is yet fully recovered. It’s an unforgiving world out there as he knows only too well and I’d hate to see him come a cropper again.
Mark Corby
3 years ago
What a terrible caption photograph!
Am I alone in thinking this makes Dr Peterson look like Dracula?
What we need is anything which pushes back against the science-driven delusion that all can be reduced to the material and mechanical. We need soul.
jcurwin
3 years ago
It’s people like Peterson–and you, Douglas Murray–who give me hope that the current collective madness can be overcome. Keep up the fight. The world needs you both.
Meghan Kathleen Jamieson
3 years ago
I think Murray is probably right that many people are craving meaning and that is part of the appeal. I’m not sure Peterson really approaches that very directly, though. That’s not a criticism, there is no reason he should. But that defecit of meaning is, I suspect, remaining unfilled in the demographic that Peterson particularly appeals to.
I agree. But part of his appeal is exactly that he doesn’t offer easy answers. Instead, he validates the personal struggle that many are, or were, facing on their own. He emboldens them on their journey by showing how it might be done.
jevaughnclrk50
3 years ago
This world has never been changed by many but a select few that travel the unknown and return with ideas of wisdom and truth to light this world. JBP is one such Man. A sigh of relief as I was worried for him. He is needed today more than ever!
lonitalee
3 years ago
Excited to join the unherd. Yeshurun here. I study the scriptures no preacher will preach, which is why I was kicked out of church on the right and continue my wilderness experience. My only written claim to fame is Holocaust (1984), a self published poem that ever puts me outside the camp, and biblically based musical dramas others lay claim to and I won’t fight, because I have others I wrote out here testifying to my authorship. I laugh a lot, because I am despised of the people, but beloved all the same. A Montanan, I salute the Alberta born.
Peter Ian Staker
3 years ago
He is an intelligent and articulate man but having listened to him and read his work I can’t really understand what people are onto when they say he helps them find purpose- maybe you need to be really struggling before you find this wisdom. Nonetheless, he has many interesting and thought provoking opinions, it’s just that at this stage in my life I don’t understand how any of this helps me or anyone else in a practical sense. I suppose there maybe something there but it could also be that people will find what they need from anyone if they are desperate enough- I wouldn’t go as far as to say he has unthinking fans who will blindly follow but that is another explanation.
I think the point with Peterson – particularly in 12 Rules – is exactly that: he’s not saying anything groundbreaking; and he admits this quite humbly himself. The issue it raises, and again one that Peterson states overtly, is that if people need his straightforward and stoic advice explicitly stated to them to help bring order and direction to their lives, then something has gone awkwardly awry in western society that they need Peterson to tell them so.
He effectively promotes a ‘help yourself, life is hard, society does not owe you a living, man-up’ philosophy which is a truism in older generations, but has become lost in younger groups who now seem to need to hear it as a possibility.
Thanks for the explanation and clarification. To me this does seem common sense but I agree sometimes it takes someone who is confident enough to state common sense advice and remind people of it. It’s hard to understand how people find these things profound insights but that is a sign of how far astray they have been led by society. He does explain how people can become evil after repeatedly being rejected by society, and I do imagine that this can happen to anyone.
Yes, you were probably not his target audience. Imagine, though, that you’re a young man, feeling the world has treated you unfairly, feeling ashamed at your lack of achievements or poor physique, not knowing much about how to relate to others, defending against your awareness of your shame by projecting blame onto others, who has had no older male role models who have stressed the importance of courage and probity. And then someone comes along who, notwithstanding his various flaws, offers a massive lesson on dignity. On what one has to do to feel proud of oneself. On how to shoulder rather than shirk life’s burdens. On telling the truth, and the reason to do that and the importance of it. On living an uncompromised life. On building inner and outer courage (to face feelings and to face others), to deploy one’s will in focused ways, to not compare oneself to others but to compare oneself today to oneself yesterday. On taking responsibilities for educating oneself, building one’s physique. And so on. I think that then, with such a new alignment of self and world and future in place, it isn’t surprising that so many young men feel that he’s given them the keys to a purposeful life.
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
I don’t always like JP’s manner in the sense that he always interrupts fellow panelists to the extent that they barely get to speak. And I don’t really find anything particularly profound in what he says. I have glanced through ’12 Rules’ in the bookshop and I don’t really see the point. I struggle with anyone who so consistently refers to the bible as I detest organised religion.
On the other hand, anyone who can articulate and embody an alternative to the Woke Educational/Media Complex nonsense of our age, and who can humiliate the likes of Cathy Newman with a few basic facts, is to be treasured.
I don’t really understand why someone who expresses so much common sense would become addicted to any form of medication. It seems to contradict so much of what he claims to stand for.
Would agree with what you have just said and this is generally my view also.
Began ’12 Rules’ but stopped halfway through. Wasn’t bad per se, just wasn’t much point in continuing as I was not seeking the guidance it offers. Though I can see it’s value.
Fair point on the medication issue – though personally I don’t think it should detract too much from his position. It doesn’t invalidate the points he makes, even if he doesn’t successfully follow in his own life all the time.
michael stanwick
3 years ago
JBP did NOT have an addiction. He developed a physical dependence.
Speaking of in-your-face totalitarian politics in the USA why not check out the new book by Anne Nelson in which she describes the applied politics of The Council For the National Interest – it is titled Media, Money, and The Secret Hub of the Radical Right. It is reviewed on the Bill Moyers website.
You mean the hit-piece by a socialist? She attacks what is normal, acceptable, and practiced in spades by her own progressive friends, as if it were some conspiratorial cabal rather than a mere alignment of interests.
john.hurley2018
3 years ago
I’ve always found it strange that “I’m a proud Islamaphobe” was never identified?
What would the correct term be for someone fears or dislikes Islam, but isn’t prejudiced against muslims?
Rob Alka
3 years ago
It’s all been said above and below. I am please, delighted and relieved that JP is soon to be firing all cylinders.
All I feel like saying is that I find it difficult if not impossible to engage my friends in what JP is all about. Their lack of curiosity or mental energy to examine JP’s thoughts more closely I find dispiriting. Worse still is when they make an attempt to do but remain not only uninspired but uninterested. The easy conclusion for me is that I need to change my friends. But it’s not as if they are unintelligent or unsuccessful. It’s not even where I live – I’m town & country, so I expect my village friends to want to have a conversation about gardening, the threat of gypsies & travellers and the joys of dry stone walling. But even away from that typical smug rural Farrow & Ball complacency, it’s no better in London, even among those steeped in identity politics, who tend to be up their own fundament, while the rest just take the well trodden path of social chit chat and avioid raising eyebrows..
BTW: I’d love to see a conversation between David Starkey and JP
Jay Williamson
3 years ago
Very well said, Douglas.
dborth
3 years ago
The return of Jordan Peterson will be the drug I need to survive the progressive leftist malaise that appears about to assume power in the United States.
benjamindavidhays
3 years ago
Great to see Jordan back. His thoughts on 2020 will be…already known I feel, by those who have listened to him. But insightful no doubt, v much looking forward to it.
Christopher Chantrill
3 years ago
Peterson is the beneficiary of what I call the German Turn, that started with Kant and his idea that we cannot know thing-in-themselves but only appearances and reached its apogee with Jung’s archetypes.
One of the most important archetypes is the Sacrificial Hero that goes on a Hero’s Journey into the underworld of the unconscious and returns to die on the border of Order and Chaos so the rest of us may live.
The most famous Sacrificial Hero is, of course, Jesus Christ. There he was all alone, facing Pontius Pilate, who asked “what is truth?”
Remember Peterson opposing the C-16 law? Check the video: there is is all alone, facing the powerful. Who now ask: “what is truth, if not a social construction?”
And so Peterson’s recent descent into hell is all part of this. And his miraculous return from the dead.
They should make a movie…
Matt S
3 years ago
One of the true intellectual charlatans of our terminal age of narcissism.
Whilst I’ve only ever agreed with Murray on one topic: the didactic, facile level of discourse around Black Lives Matter, I do have a grudging respect for his intellect. That respect has come into serious question given his astonishing reverence for this glib, pompous quack.
Peterson’s writings are little more than a series of jargon-filled convolutions based on simplistic truisms that help him to justify his facile “just so” view of the world. 12 Rules For Life is the self-help book for the intellectually barren searching for meaning in the Godless world Nietzsche predicted.
His pseudo-sagely maxims (a personal favourite: “There is no being without imperfection.”) aside, Peterson’s reading and disingenuous interpretation of Orwell are perhaps the best exposition of his intellectual fraudulence. Quite incredulously, he claimed Orwell disavowed all forms of socialism in the Road to Wigan Pier which subsequently influenced Peterson himself to do the same. Suffice to quote just one line from the book to show how dim (or disingenuous depending on how charitable you’re feeling towards our revered self-help quack) Peterson is: “For the moment, the only possible course of any decent person, however much of a Tory or an anarchist by temperament, is to work for the establishment of Socialism.
Finally, to the commenters below: can we please move beyond this shallow, degenerate mudslinging of Left vs. Right? The so-called “Left”, as seemingly defined in the comments here, is a pale facsimile of true ‘left” thinking; they’re little more than capitalistic bien pensants. Whereas the “Right” seem to have lost all ability to think logically and dispassionately. Just one example: the frankly bizarre view that the UK “MSM” is broadly left-wing; it would take the average household bluebottle all of five minutes to place the editorial slant of the Daily Mail; Daily Express; Daily Telegraph; The Sun; The Daily Star comfortably on the “right”.
And don’t get me started on our resident Melanie Phillips Littlejohn Liddle, “Simon Denis” who argues that abortion is equitable to infanticide.
What fresh hell is this?
LCarey Rowland
3 years ago
I have followed most of Professor Peterson’s lecture trail through Genesis. His teaching and analysis is just what the doctor ordered for the restoration of meaningful analysis and dialogue in Western culture. I look forward to his teaching on Exodus. Dr. Peterson’s scholarship is refreshing and invigorating, breathing new life into the ancient atrophied root and trunk of Judeo-Christian faith, thought and inspiration. Thank you, Douglas, for the update, even though I am reading this a month after you posted it. But even so, the truths and profundities of biblical legacy are beyond time, bordering on the eternal, insofar as the Universe itself is founded upon the eternal One who, in the beginning, created the heavens and the earth. . . and the man and the woman. The rest is history. Between Jung and Dostoevsky and Peterson maybe we’ll get a few things figured out in the days to come. Seek and we shall find. Knock, and the door will opened to us.
j.merzetti
3 years ago
Since Dr. Peterson first surfaced on my radar screen back in 2016, and I had the good fortune to become acquainted with his point of view, I’ve become more comfortable considering him as a kind of Canadian Man For All Seasons. I’m sure he would be the first to laugh at any Messianic accolades. But why is it, really, that he is so necessary? My immediate response to his intellect took hold and has never left. By welcome and competent demonstration, he gives us instruction on how to wrestle with bad ideas and prevent them from doing harm and mischief. It appears that an awful lot of kettles are calling an awful lot of pots (that designated color) but that shouldn’t even be the point. The point for me personally, is the ongoing story of our times: that a decent human being comes under attack for applying decency. The world is a hell of a weight to carry on one’s shoulders. I recall watching some of his last interviews a couple of years ago, with some measure of uncomfortable squirming in my chair, and within my consciousness, as the notion grew inside me that all was not well. Elanor Rigby’s lonely people was on to something. But it is a massive undertaking, to take that one on. It is a massive job, and requires more than one set of shoulders to hold up. My very favorite thing? Dr. Peterson has the amazing courage to think out loud. No script. As pretty as a Miles Davis muted horn.
John Paul
3 years ago
Hmm – I don’t trust this site (I’m not referring to the editorial content, incidentally)…
Last edited 3 years ago by John Paul
John Paul
3 years ago
It’s still not working!
Last edited 3 years ago by John Paul
Sidney Eschenbach
3 years ago
I liked Peterson’s books and videos, but now see him for another in the long line of false prophets; people who told anyone and everyone could how to live… but couldn’t follow their own advice. From Ted Haggard to Jim Bakker to Jimmey Swaggert and Jerry Fallwell Jr,, in the end we discover that Peterson couldn’t even follow his own twelve rules, particularly the most important ones, numbers 1, 6 and 8. I far prefer to take advice from those who actually aren’t hypocrites, people who actually do what the say, and practice what they preach. Count me out of the ‘welcome back Kotter’ crowd. Peterson’s ideas now ring very hollow, even though they remain, like the commandments that the others couldn’t follow, generally good advice.
So a professional driver is to be discounted on how to drive because he’s had an accident? You acknowledge that his advice is generally good; the messenger’s struggles do not discount the message.
Peterson never claims superiority to the vicissitudes of life. His whole message is founded on the understanding that everyone including himself is always one step away from a descent into some kind of hell, whether from within or without. And no one is immune. He is very sincere about that. His warnings are for himself as much as anyone, not because he thinks they are perfect antidotes but because he believes them to be the more helpful than other solutions. Your assessment is profoundly unfair, IMO.
Charlotte Lund
3 years ago
Did I get this right? – the article is about a man who makes a fortune out of telling men to straighten their shoulders and clean their rooms – all in order to avoid being weak. And then his wife gets cancer and most likely needs someone to help her getting through. And he responds by increasing his dose of anxiety pills to the extent that he not only is incapable of lifting her up, but also shifts the family focus to himself. I think I will hurry home from work today to kiss my husband a few extra times – in pure gratitude for him being secure enough in his manliness to find it unthinkable that he needs to control or limit my space in order to fully develop his.
I believe we might have different cultural background – where I come from it’s neither good nor bad to “make a fortune”, i.e. you could instead say “make a living”. To me there is no negative value implied. The irony is first of all Mr Peterson’s patronizing advise and secondly his conclusion that men are higher up in hierarchies because of their inherent abilties to lead. Men are Order, women are Chaos… Not so much it seems.
Then why mention it? It’s a rhetorical move that is used to discredit. Could you start your criticism with ‘a man who makes a modest living’? No, not a cultural difference. Just me reading English.
I don’t think you understand him right. He never claimed that men are higher up in hierarchies because of their ability to lead. Instead there are multiple hierarchies in life, e.g. more men in engineering, more women in child care and nursing, and this is driven mostly by biological differences and the difference in interests of men and women. Also both order and chaos are necessary, what’s important is to have a balance. I recommend watching his psychology lectures which elaborate clearer on his thinking.
And his reply to accusations of being photographed with that offensive t-shirt wearer included (I paraphrase from memory, and am no longer sure of the amount, either), “the guy had paid his 200$ to be photographed with me”. What? You get paid to be photographed? I was a big admirer of Peterson’s theories up to that point.
I’m a great admirer of JP but I can’t disagree with you in relation to his collapse at the time his wife needed him most, shifting the focus to himself. I’ve had the very same thoughts myself.
K Willis
3 years ago
It strikes me that Jordan Peterson is a kind of self-help guru for a particular demographic: a cohort seeking order and meaning to help them understand the challenges of the changing world we live in, and their declining role within it. Indeed, this is the role of all self help gurus ” make the suffering mean something, make me feel strong again, make me feel right again. The fact that Jordan throws in some stats and evidence to support some of his more outlandish ideological statements, not least in 12 reasons, is classic salesman territory: ‘You can believe me because I know some numbers’. His followers feel confident in their underlying sexism or religious righteousness because he presents as an evidence-led thinker. He makes them feel smart, justified and superior, even if they’re not. A shame they can’t see it.
“a cohort seeking order and meaning to help them understand the challenges of the changing world we live in, and their declining role within it.” Why don’t you come right out and say it? You mean men and boys. Besides the fact that his appeal is much broader than that, why would you think it’s necessary to belittle anyone’s concerns about meaning and purpose in the world? Men are bombarded daily with such dismissive messages and worse, and then are denigrated if they look to each other or anyone in order to figure out what is going on. One thing I am seeing more and more is the sex that is purported to have a greater capacity for empathy and compassion all too often has none for their opposite.
Stanley Beardshall
3 years ago
I subscribe to Unherd to read sensible articles about serious topics written by people who know their subject and, hopefully, who have no political or religious axes to grind. Bit of a disappointment, then, to read this article and later discover the comments. Dear me, “God”? Are you all deluded?
How dare Unherd, a free online magazine, post an article that Stanley Beardshall disagrees with. Maybe they should have run it past you first before publishing?
No, I’m not deluded, but I’m reasonable enough to understand that, despite my view that religious texts and the evidence for God are ludicrously unbelievable, the vast majority of human beings have always believed in some kind of higher power and many highly intelligent today people believe in God and yet this doesn’t automatically negate any other achievements they may have to their name or any other unrelated claims they make.
Hristomir Ivanov
3 years ago
It’s funny how a clever and educated author like Douglas Murray was fooled by a liar like Jordan Peterson.
In our lives we surely need Douglas Murray for his seminal books ‘The Strange Death of Europe’ and ‘The Madness of Crowds’. But we don’t need the liar and psycho Jordan Peterson.
Actually Peterson is not conservative, he does not understand or like Christianity. He’s been attacked by the Right for his lies and stupidity. Read ‘Jordanetics’ by Vox Day. You can buy it from Amazon or download it for free from some pirate sites.
You call him a liar without substantiation except to tell us to educate ourselves with some book. And who ever said he was a ‘conservative’? I am sure Douglas Murray wouldn’t say so. As far as I can tell, his only political drive is to oppose whatever leads to totalitarian statist policies, wherever that come from. What he’s really interested in is psychology as it can illuminate the big philosophical and religious narratives of our culture.
No, don’t read that book. It only summarizes what you should know from primary education. One should have enough knowledge about dao, OT , NT and Chordata diverged from the Beloved Nephropidae. They had quite different evolution, something missed by the guru Jordan.
Yes – 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 -and like a lot of people doesn’t easily slot into a pre defined definition-another reason I identify with him.I’m “quite right wing” but my interpretation of that is not necessarily that of a momentum member!I’m economically liberal but view the state as having an important role,socially conservative but support equality of opportunity & access-I suppose I’m a Conservative but don’t recognise that in the current Government .I accept that Trump is a deeply flawed human being but also that he has a valid mandate and has achieved more in certain areas than many of his lauded predecessors-the Abraham Accord is a truly significant event in Middle East Politics -Obama received the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people” which is about as weak a resume as you can find for any award.
Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for no reason whatsoever, then laid waste to Libya two years later. What a fraud.
In one of his many videos (sorry I can’t recall exactly which one) Peterson opined that the Left-Right issue was a hierarchal struggle with the two sides always rubbing against each other.
In his view (at least as I understood it) the struggle for balance between the two is how we advance as a society.
It also keeps the fringes in check.
Both must exist for the system to work but go too far Left or Right and you ruin the balance and cause chaos.
Peterson’s opinion is that the Left has no defined fringe.
If Left is Good, Far Left is Better and right now we’re enduring a certain amount of chaos because of it, ie; Wokeness/Cancel Culture etc etc.
I have no idea if he personally supports Trump and I’m certainly not an authority on Peterson’s work, but I’m guessing that according to his theories presented thus far he would view Trump not as the Left does – as an unwelcome intruder from the Right – but rather a societal need to restore balance disturbed by the Left in the first place.
Trump is a result – not a cause.
Trump’s carefree truth-bending, boorishness and erraticism are taken as read, but “voters must be stupid” isn’t why he’s POTUS certainly not why the Left wants him gone.
Well said!
Yes I kind of agree with this. Although the idea that Trump will help the little guy is deluded. Also there are two quite different ‘lefts’. There is the left of the university campus cancel culture, identity politics, etc, which is just awful. Here I totally agree with GP. But there is the economic left who believes that economic inequality is getting extreme and we need to do something. It is the left that wants to curb the excessive power of global corporations, and believes that tax havens and massive tax avoidance needs tackling. This is the good left!
IMO, the real battle is between Globalism and Nationalism.
Of course globalism serves the usual suspects like Big Money but it also serves the ‘bad Left’ such as the Climate Change movement and those that support wealth redistribution and unfettered human migration.
Strange bedfellows.
The ‘good Left’ as you describe it – the Left that pursues things like a ‘living wage’ would best be served by nationalist policies such as stronger union rights or tariffs on cheap imported goods.
The Left – both sides – have been unable to reconcile these inconsistencies within their own sphere.
Burning coal is bad for the planet, ergo coal mining is bad.
So what do unemployed coal miners do?
Other countries are still happily mining coal.
There are lots of unemployed coal miners that we’re trying to find gainful employment for so let’s open the borders because migration is a human right?
That’s a conundrum that has cost the Left dearly at the ballot box.
They can’t satisfy globalists without offending nationalists and vice versa.
In 2016 the Dems decided to ignore the Deplorables and lost simply because Trump recognized these people exist.
The fact that he did little or nothing to help doesn’t matter.
The Dems shunted Sanders aside not once, but twice.
His platform like Corbyn’s Labour, was Marxism-Lite and had the wokesters all excited – finally we’ll make Big Money squeak – but if they had thought about it for a moment they would have realized that the putting the squeeze on Big Money required adoption of protectionist policies. ie; Nationalism.
Coal miners… currently 50,000, down from 850,000 in the twenties, and you actually think that tiny number can’t find jobs elsewhere? 20 times that number are filing new unemployment claims weekly due to Covid. In short, great soundbite, but statistically not a rounding error.
Sorry – it was just meant as a theoretical example – to make the point that dumping a resource economy in favour of climate change has consequences.
But having said that.
Some of those miners/steel workers/autoworkers may be skilled tradesman but mostly not.
Should they compete for jobs with unskilled immigrants? Globalism
Do we need to curtail immigration until these people are back on their feet? Nationalism
Or is it all OK – there are enough good ‘living wage’ jobs for everyone?
The ‘deplorables’ were asking these questions – and they are legitimate questions- and the Dems labeled them deplorables and xenophobes for their trouble.
FWIW, social activist filmmaker Michael Moore detests Trump – obviously – but he says the Democrats still refuse to admit they blew the election by spitting on the people that have always supported them.
” FWIW, social activist filmmaker Michael Moore detests Trump – obviously – but he says the Democrats still refuse to admit they blew the election by spitting on the people that have always supported them.”
“”””””””””””””””””””””
And why did Michael Moore do this? Because he’s born and raised in blue collar Michigan. His family members made their living working blue-collar jobs in auto factories. He may live in Southern California and rub shoulders with the Hollywood stars and directors, but as he says often,
“Even though I drink my beer out of Crystal nowadays I’m still at Bubba at heart.” Something else I’ve read that he has said often.
I shall paraphrase him.
“Your garden-variety wealthy white collar Californian wouldn’t know a blue-collar steel worker pipefitter, pipeline welder, oilfield roughneck if one of them walked up and stuck out his hand ðŸ–, and said shake hands with a such and such.
To them blue collar is the illegal Mexicans that cut their grass and rake their yard on a regular basis. And they work for a white man that owns the lawn care company because even though he pays a decent wage of $20 an hour he can’t even hire a born & raised white or black young man.
Because they’re too lazy to leave their parents house to take these jobs. And back when I was coming up young whites and blacks did them.”
People from ‘somewhere’ vs. people from ‘anywhere’. The latter are eager to deny and erase the former. That is virtue.The former want the latter reigned in for the sake of their own virtue. IMO, the ‘somewheres’ have a more balanced perspective.
Strictly speaking, he is POTUS because the US electoral system allows the candidate who won fewer votes to be anointed as the winner. And that’s despite vote suppression in Republican-controlled states.
What voter suppression? I keep hearing this shop-worn talking point being treated as an article of faith with no evidence to back it up. Voter ID is often used as an example, as if certain populations are incapable of securing IDs. They’re not and it’s a bad red herring of an argument anyway considering the litany of far less important things for which ID is required.
Considering that the entire adult population of South Africa has IDs, I’m sure the first world societies will catch up one day!
The electoral system works perfectly. Because it keeps the
“Tyrannical Masses” from running roughshod over the smaller population.
The foundation fathers where brilliant and nearly all of the founding fathers were very familiar with these kind of people because most of them came from England.
They were very familiar with a tyrannical government. And with tyrannical people. If things was reversed to suit you and your ilk, America would be run by the village idiot left out of California and NYC.
Re: Climate Change
Again in one of his videos Peterson did knock the Climate Change movement because from the scientific perspective you can’t measure outcomes if you don’t have defined goals.
It’s like a beauty contestant claiming “I want world peace”.
How nice.
What exactly is the definition of “world peace”?
Who exactly has the authority to define the specifics in the first place?
How exactly will we be able to measure and determine when “world peace” has been attained?
If you can’t answer these questions then you can’t form a plan and without a plan you can’t get anything done.
IMO, Peterson’s response explains why the Climate Change movement loudly insists on immediate action, often with real and serious economic side effects but then offers nebulous and varying opinions as to degree of success many decades down the road, when people like Gore and Greta will likely be pub quiz History questions.
He has always defined himself as a “classic British-style liberal”. One of his prime motivations is being anti-authoritarian.
So you KNOW that people expect a Messiah? How about people are being crushed,&villified with their country turning into a cesspit before their very eyes..fearful for their childrens well being..inc the possibility of being blown up at an Ariadne Grande concert..amongst other horrors(Rotherham)…all thanks to leftist ideology.
They’re NOT looking for a messiah but they’d dearly love their country to be safe&to function as it used to in their own lifetime..
You super left wing fell off the edge years ago!! So definitely not working CLASS
Irrelevant of what people think of his ideas, I respect Jordan Peterson enormously as a human being. Throughout this never-ending controversial media storm that he has found himself in, he has been extremely tolerant, respectful and professional. On top of this, his emotional openness and the devoted bond he shares with his family, is testament of his upstanding character.
I personally find his thoughts and ideas deeply fascinating to listen to and back in 2017, he was the only person I could find online, who could explain to me this rapid and widening division in western society that I now know is the result of an insane postmodern Identity Politics. It took several other authors (Douglas Murray, Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, Jonathan Haidt and Debra Soh to name a few) to fully comprehend it all, but Dr Peterson was my first teacher and for that I am indebted to him.
That said, I’m ashamed to admit that I am still too scared to praise him openly to my friends on the left, because of the stigma generated by all the false accusations from the radical left. I loathe this self-righteous ignorance that blinds the left into accepting such radical indoctrination that CT has fed mainstream liberalism. The fight is far from over, but there is at least growing evidence this year, that the message is starting to get through. Dr Peterson deserves to be recognised by mainstream society for his courage, reason and intellectual rigor in standing up to such a dangerous ideology.
I’m really pleased to see he’s back home and on the road to recovery and when the time is right, I look forward to hearing his thoughts on this year’s unpredictable developments and what new insights he’s been able to unravel about the human psyche.
Your first couple of paragraphs express (better than I could have) my own opinion and experience of Peterson.
He has my well wishes in his current pursuits. I know he was very disappointed that the Cambridge arrangement did not work out but I think what he is doing now is much better. I suspect that seeking to understand Exodus at Cambridge would be as fruitful as looking for the meaning of life in postmodernism.
Yes I agree, and thank you for the article and the overview. It was through listening to Peterson that I first became aware of the madness and deceitfulness of the woke culture wars in universities, I was still living in the US at the time, and had no idea this wave of ideology was happening in Canada, and even less of the extent it had impacted Britain. I agree that the majority of his critics have not actually listened to him or taken on board what he says. He is very well informed along certain lines, and very interesting and open-minded. And he has the quality that cynical intellectualism hates which is earnestness and a genuine desire to be honest to the best of his ability. He was not trying to ‘take down’ the Channel 4 interviewer Cathy Newman, he was simply being himself. It’s just that honesty and earnestness, and having something to say that is somewhat original or at least not the same well-worn cliches came as a shock to the media system. I agree also that the appeal he has to many younger men should make the cynical intellectual class take note. Mentorship is important, and if he is drawing that kind of thoughtful and deep response, it is insulting to those thousands of men (and women) to suggest the only reason is because they are duped.
This is an excellent article and yes, many of us do believe Peterson has much to offer.
Good news. I wish Peterson luck and health.
‘critics primarily on the ideological Left claimed that Peterson was some kind of fringe alt-right figure…..’
Nick Cohen did just that, in a recent article.
Having watched a few of Peterson’s TV appearances and lectures, before he became ill, I think that is a ludicrous assertion.
Pity, because I greatly enjoyed Cohen’s books ‘ What’s Left’ and ‘You can’t read this book’.
His destruction of Cathy Newman was one of the best things Ive seen, get him on with Beff and Andrew Marrxist, what a treat that would be
Yeah, I still smile when my memory of it is jogged (usually by people in online discussions replying to someone’s argument with dishonest insinuations: “So what you’re saying is that poor people should be left to die…” I often contribute the “Hi, Cathy Newman, and welcome to the discussion” line. It’s hackneyed, I know, but Newman was such a perfect public example of a complete failure to engage with what someone is actually saying that it’s still apt.)
Indeed. One of the most striking consequences of that particular spat was the failure on her part and on the part of the Channel 4 authorities to realise that she had made a complete fool of herself. When, several days after the initial broadcast, Channel 4 posted the complete interview online, they did so in the belief that this would vindicate her.
That is what tends to happen on the woke side of culture ” because of the ideological conformity to groupthink, there is a profound lack of self-awareness. I have observed the same thing when, commenting on that interview and on other events of that kind to woke-inclined friends and family, they completely fail to see what a total intellectual and moral disaster that interview was.
I personally find JP’s arguments and outlook quite persuasive, even if told in a rather unattractive and arrogant way. However, anyone familiar with the hundreds of interviews and lectures available online will be aware of three failings: first, he is frequently wholly incoherent, starting and restarting sentences in a garbled mess of obscurity and never getting to the end. Secondly, when asked about God, his answers are complete gibberish. He defends himself by saying, ‘it all depends on what you mean by god’ This is of course true, but when the questioner goes on to answer this her/himself, JP wanders off into obscurity again. Obscurity is the screen behind which hides intellectual mediocrity. Thirdly, although constantly boasting assertively about his scientific expertise – ‘I DO know’ he frequently snaps at skeptics – he is completely ignorant about academic fields the understanding of which is essential in order to pronouce on the subjects he has chosen to write about: moral philosophy (my own area) and the social sciences. I would hesitate before labelling JP a fraud. A proper estimate is that he is a talented pundit who is often right – and often wrong..
It is a weird but predictable feature of this story that he has found a supporter in Douglas Murray. It fits with the astonishing eulogy offered by DM on the death of his ‘longtime’ mentor and friend Roger Scruton. The gay DM seems perfectly at ease lavishly praising the man who writes (in ‘Sexual Desire’): ” It is perfectly appropriate for children to be encouraged to view homosexuality with revulsion.” [sic] This is ‘tolerance’ with a vengeance.
not sure it does at all. While I disagree with most of the late Scruton’s conclusions (but not his taste in classical music) he did know how to articulate a philosphical argument
Scruton wrote Sexual Desire in the mid 1980s. I am not going to claim it was ‘another era’, but we’re talking 35 years ago and a fair criticism would seek to know if his views had since been revised.
No evidence of any change. Still radically ‘eccentric’ – see (on youtube) the fairly recent 90 minute interview Scruton gave to Dutch tv, which includes S talking about the thrill [sic] of hunting foxes to death. He specifically revels in the rituals of death. Nothing mealy-mouthed there.
Also, Murray claims he knew Scruton for a very long time – i.e. including during the period of his book’s publication.
My main point of course was the fact that Murray, who rightly denounces the new ‘madness’ of political correctness, just happens to be particularly allied with extremists of the right, including Heffer, C Moore, Melanie Phillips (twice voted Homophobe of the Year by Stonewall.) et al.
You know why that might be? Because you are mistaken in thinking because he associates with people, he is ‘allied’ with them. Perhaps he is not an ideologue, respects free thought and is able to form friendships without demanding intellectual conformity. He’s a civilized person, in other words. Practicing what he preaches.
I do believe that he has these qualities you enumerate. But there is something extreme in the particular case. Thought experiment: is it not unprecedented for an individual to sit down in jocular bonhomie with someone who has publicly stated that he is ‘disgusting’ (same with his interview with the oafish homophobe Dennis Prager) ? Try this out, mutatis mutandis, with racial examples.
Loved you first para. And illustrated imo in his “debate” with Zizek.
Thank you for your tribute to Canada’s most famous intellectual, Douglas. I haven’t watched them to the end yet, but Jordan Peterson’s lectures on the Book of Genesis are wonderful. I hope that he is able to produce a similar set of lectures on Exodus as he plans to do. He rambles almost comically off topic in many of his lectures, but that, at least for me, is part of their charm.
Jordan Peterson show just how truly stupid and incorrigibly belligerent the left truly is. But more so, he showed us that have common sense and believe in him How dangerous, truly
“Dangerous” the left truly is. Here in the United States it was A-OK for BLM= “Black Looters Matter” to have riots and tear up, tear down over 30 large downtown cities.
Not even our federal CDC, the Center for Disease Control would come out and speak out against thousands of them spreading the Chinese virus while they rioted and physically attacked our local police and innocent citizens.
(elderly men and women just trying to cross the street and some of them in wheelchairs. All because they white!!!!!! You bet this pisses me off. But they only done this in democrat controlled cities. They wouldn’t dare come to places like here in Montana. Our town we had a billboard put up warning them and ANTIFA If they showed up they would be met by ARMED FORCE.)
And yet the same “August Intellectuals” spoke out against people going to church. That’s right because of the virus. Spoke out against opening businesses. That’s right because of the virus. And yet 5000 people could come together and tear down a city under the disguise of “marching peacefully ” which was a flat out lie, pushed by CNN, against there President, Trump.
Indeed welcome back to the professor and I hope his health and his wife’s health continue to improve. He is the only person to really make sense of Genesis for me. Exodus will also be very interesting but I will be delighted if he ever tackles the New Testament in a similar way in particular Revelation. I have no doubt that he is a Christian but I think he has stripped almost all church ritual and tradition from it.
This is good news! Thank you, Douglas, for posting it.
“It is to their long-term detriment that they failed to consider this deeper question: that Peterson spoke to such a wide array of listeners because he was hovering right over the questions of meaning and purpose, which almost everyone else in our society had decided to abandon. Including, but by no means limited to, the Church.” This is damming but true.
The way the smug Left elitists and Post Modern “progressives” go after Peterson tells you that he’s rumbled them and uncovered their hypocritical, narrow-minded and destructive views. I doubt few, if any, of his critics have even bothered to read any of his output or watched his interviews/lectures. The simple question one might ask oneself is: if you found yourself in a post apocalyptic world and there was one person that you could have at your side, would that person be Peterson or Foucault?
Being an atheist I am not over fond of Mr Peterson’s thinking on a number of topics but it is always good to welcome back someone who can argue a case with good sense, good manners and good grace.
Reading the comments below, though, makes me think that perhaps the continued expansion of atheism has led to to a kind of quasi political religion where people (often not equipped with Mr Peterson’s sense, manners and grace) feel they can cast judgement with impunity to whomever they disagree with. As some bloke once said – let he who is without sin throw the first stone.
I think a have just disturbed a gathering of a cult
It’s the complete opposite of a cult – unless you think rational scientific thought is a cult. I think you need to see some of his videos. Plenty out there on youtube.
rational scientific thought is not usually on youtube
A closed mind is not a virtue.
nor is a totally uncritical one
Depends where you look – obviously.
I would recommend broadening your viewing habits. A few suggestions if I may:
Neil deGrasse Tyson:
https://www.youtube.com/cha…
Eric Weinstein:
https://www.youtube.com/use…
Brian Cox:
https://www.youtube.com/res…
All sorts really.
Tried the Weinstein, a man breathlessly talking about “Wokeness” unimpressed
Yes it is, you just need to look. And to exercise judgement as to what is credible and what is not.
Accepting that there is a huge amount of rubbish out there there is also an amazing amount of really good stuff.
In response to the article and with Mr. Peterson in mind. I believe that we all instinctively know what is right and what is wrong 99.9 of the time. Though we are born with a complex mind that through genetics can turn what is thought and communally accepted as the right path. Into a thought pattern not understood and that can wreak havoc amongst humanity. When to know, the generated ancestry of genetics in its imperceptibility can create unexplained havoc of thought to run riot through centuries of human existence. Where now there is a need to bring about, and to expose one mind set and exemplify it by another to mark good from bad.
Where I from a very young age and without being tutored up to that time, naturally believed in reincarnation and we to be from spirit, and will return to spirit to begin a new existence on another path until we reach perfection, but my problem, I cannot see for what purpose? But with this awareness of others, I should be kind to all mankind and animals and to believe in fairness to all. So to believe in a God does not sit well in my thought patterns. But if god keeps a person on the straight and narrow, so not to do physical or mental harm to one another that is all we as humans communally can ask for in this life of contradiction.
You express an interesting viewpoint Lyn. I think that if there is a God, he must matter. The idea of a God who doesn’t matter is not rational. If there is no God, the God cannot matter.
His fresh suggestion to live one’s life ‘as if God existed’, whether he does or doesn’t is an interesting one. Much possible interpretation there as to how that plays out but, as a pure embodiment of our “better angels” without the worshipping carry-on, it’s worth exploring (and I have no belief in gods and never shall have).
It’s a good argument, familiar since the C17 as Pascal’s wager. Put another way, if it looks like rain, no harm in taking an umbrella
I first encountered Peterson when he was a quasi-regular panelist on a current events show on our provincial educational television broadcaster in Ontario, where he would appear to opine based upon his work in clinical psychology. It prompted me to read his 1999 work (read by hundreds, maybe?) “Maps of Meaning” which while a challenging read was a serious work of scholarship. Then for a while he stopped appearing on the show and I wondered why that might be. When he did return briefly a couple of years later (remotely rather than in studio as he had in the past) there was something different about him and he looked frankly unwell. He hasn’t appeared on the show since, which must be almost 7 years or so ago.
Subsequently I would read about him in the Toronto press — there were public conflicts with students over pronoun usage, and his rise as an internet phenomenon.
I agree that the world needs him, but I think the him it needs is no longer with us.
I like Peterson, though I thought quite a bit of 12 Rules wasn’t great. However it certainly made me realise things about myself. Particularly the section on truth. Glad he’s back on form!
I – like many others, I suspect – am pleased to read this and, indeed, to see Prof Peterson’s own video. I do wonder, however – based on the way he appeared in the video – whether he is yet fully recovered. It’s an unforgiving world out there as he knows only too well and I’d hate to see him come a cropper again.
What a terrible caption photograph!
Am I alone in thinking this makes Dr Peterson look like Dracula?
Undead
Indeed. My immediate reaction was that it must be a piece about Christopher Lee.
I have appreciation for the achievement of JP, but his apparent intellectual dependence on something as facile as Jungian “archetypes” is beyond me.
I think what we need most is evolutionary psychology pushing back on social engineering (ethnicless societies).
What we need is anything which pushes back against the science-driven delusion that all can be reduced to the material and mechanical. We need soul.
It’s people like Peterson–and you, Douglas Murray–who give me hope that the current collective madness can be overcome. Keep up the fight. The world needs you both.
I think Murray is probably right that many people are craving meaning and that is part of the appeal. I’m not sure Peterson really approaches that very directly, though. That’s not a criticism, there is no reason he should. But that defecit of meaning is, I suspect, remaining unfilled in the demographic that Peterson particularly appeals to.
I agree. But part of his appeal is exactly that he doesn’t offer easy answers. Instead, he validates the personal struggle that many are, or were, facing on their own. He emboldens them on their journey by showing how it might be done.
This world has never been changed by many but a select few that travel the unknown and return with ideas of wisdom and truth to light this world. JBP is one such Man. A sigh of relief as I was worried for him. He is needed today more than ever!
Excited to join the unherd. Yeshurun here. I study the scriptures no preacher will preach, which is why I was kicked out of church on the right and continue my wilderness experience. My only written claim to fame is Holocaust (1984), a self published poem that ever puts me outside the camp, and biblically based musical dramas others lay claim to and I won’t fight, because I have others I wrote out here testifying to my authorship. I laugh a lot, because I am despised of the people, but beloved all the same. A Montanan, I salute the Alberta born.
He is an intelligent and articulate man but having listened to him and read his work I can’t really understand what people are onto when they say he helps them find purpose- maybe you need to be really struggling before you find this wisdom. Nonetheless, he has many interesting and thought provoking opinions, it’s just that at this stage in my life I don’t understand how any of this helps me or anyone else in a practical sense. I suppose there maybe something there but it could also be that people will find what they need from anyone if they are desperate enough- I wouldn’t go as far as to say he has unthinking fans who will blindly follow but that is another explanation.
I think the point with Peterson – particularly in 12 Rules – is exactly that: he’s not saying anything groundbreaking; and he admits this quite humbly himself.
The issue it raises, and again one that Peterson states overtly, is that if people need his straightforward and stoic advice explicitly stated to them to help bring order and direction to their lives, then something has gone awkwardly awry in western society that they need Peterson to tell them so.
He effectively promotes a ‘help yourself, life is hard, society does not owe you a living, man-up’ philosophy which is a truism in older generations, but has become lost in younger groups who now seem to need to hear it as a possibility.
Thanks for the explanation and clarification. To me this does seem common sense but I agree sometimes it takes someone who is confident enough to state common sense advice and remind people of it. It’s hard to understand how people find these things profound insights but that is a sign of how far astray they have been led by society. He does explain how people can become evil after repeatedly being rejected by society, and I do imagine that this can happen to anyone.
Yes, you were probably not his target audience. Imagine, though, that you’re a young man, feeling the world has treated you unfairly, feeling ashamed at your lack of achievements or poor physique, not knowing much about how to relate to others, defending against your awareness of your shame by projecting blame onto others, who has had no older male role models who have stressed the importance of courage and probity. And then someone comes along who, notwithstanding his various flaws, offers a massive lesson on dignity. On what one has to do to feel proud of oneself. On how to shoulder rather than shirk life’s burdens. On telling the truth, and the reason to do that and the importance of it. On living an uncompromised life. On building inner and outer courage (to face feelings and to face others), to deploy one’s will in focused ways, to not compare oneself to others but to compare oneself today to oneself yesterday. On taking responsibilities for educating oneself, building one’s physique. And so on. I think that then, with such a new alignment of self and world and future in place, it isn’t surprising that so many young men feel that he’s given them the keys to a purposeful life.
I don’t always like JP’s manner in the sense that he always interrupts fellow panelists to the extent that they barely get to speak. And I don’t really find anything particularly profound in what he says. I have glanced through ’12 Rules’ in the bookshop and I don’t really see the point. I struggle with anyone who so consistently refers to the bible as I detest organised religion.
On the other hand, anyone who can articulate and embody an alternative to the Woke Educational/Media Complex nonsense of our age, and who can humiliate the likes of Cathy Newman with a few basic facts, is to be treasured.
I don’t really understand why someone who expresses so much common sense would become addicted to any form of medication. It seems to contradict so much of what he claims to stand for.
Would agree with what you have just said and this is generally my view also.
Began ’12 Rules’ but stopped halfway through. Wasn’t bad per se, just wasn’t much point in continuing as I was not seeking the guidance it offers. Though I can see it’s value.
Fair point on the medication issue – though personally I don’t think it should detract too much from his position. It doesn’t invalidate the points he makes, even if he doesn’t successfully follow in his own life all the time.
JBP did NOT have an addiction. He developed a physical dependence.
For those interested, here is a good video on this topic in relation to JBP>
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
We very happy to have u back
Amen
Speaking of in-your-face totalitarian politics in the USA why not check out the new book by Anne Nelson in which she describes the applied politics of The Council For the National Interest – it is titled Media, Money, and The Secret Hub of the Radical Right. It is reviewed on the Bill Moyers website.
You mean the hit-piece by a socialist? She attacks what is normal, acceptable, and practiced in spades by her own progressive friends, as if it were some conspiratorial cabal rather than a mere alignment of interests.
I’ve always found it strange that “I’m a proud Islamaphobe” was never identified?
He wasn’t important. It was the ‘adjacent’ fellow who needed to be found guilty by association.
What would the correct term be for someone fears or dislikes Islam, but isn’t prejudiced against muslims?
It’s all been said above and below. I am please, delighted and relieved that JP is soon to be firing all cylinders.
All I feel like saying is that I find it difficult if not impossible to engage my friends in what JP is all about. Their lack of curiosity or mental energy to examine JP’s thoughts more closely I find dispiriting. Worse still is when they make an attempt to do but remain not only uninspired but uninterested. The easy conclusion for me is that I need to change my friends. But it’s not as if they are unintelligent or unsuccessful. It’s not even where I live – I’m town & country, so I expect my village friends to want to have a conversation about gardening, the threat of gypsies & travellers and the joys of dry stone walling. But even away from that typical smug rural Farrow & Ball complacency, it’s no better in London, even among those steeped in identity politics, who tend to be up their own fundament, while the rest just take the well trodden path of social chit chat and avioid raising eyebrows..
BTW: I’d love to see a conversation between David Starkey and JP
Very well said, Douglas.
The return of Jordan Peterson will be the drug I need to survive the progressive leftist malaise that appears about to assume power in the United States.
Great to see Jordan back. His thoughts on 2020 will be…already known I feel, by those who have listened to him. But insightful no doubt, v much looking forward to it.
Peterson is the beneficiary of what I call the German Turn, that started with Kant and his idea that we cannot know thing-in-themselves but only appearances and reached its apogee with Jung’s archetypes.
One of the most important archetypes is the Sacrificial Hero that goes on a Hero’s Journey into the underworld of the unconscious and returns to die on the border of Order and Chaos so the rest of us may live.
The most famous Sacrificial Hero is, of course, Jesus Christ. There he was all alone, facing Pontius Pilate, who asked “what is truth?”
Remember Peterson opposing the C-16 law? Check the video: there is is all alone, facing the powerful. Who now ask: “what is truth, if not a social construction?”
And so Peterson’s recent descent into hell is all part of this. And his miraculous return from the dead.
They should make a movie…
One of the true intellectual charlatans of our terminal age of narcissism.
Whilst I’ve only ever agreed with Murray on one topic: the didactic, facile level of discourse around Black Lives Matter, I do have a grudging respect for his intellect. That respect has come into serious question given his astonishing reverence for this glib, pompous quack.
Peterson’s writings are little more than a series of jargon-filled convolutions based on simplistic truisms that help him to justify his facile “just so” view of the world. 12 Rules For Life is the self-help book for the intellectually barren searching for meaning in the Godless world Nietzsche predicted.
His pseudo-sagely maxims (a personal favourite: “There is no being without imperfection.”) aside, Peterson’s reading and disingenuous interpretation of Orwell are perhaps the best exposition of his intellectual fraudulence. Quite incredulously, he claimed Orwell disavowed all forms of socialism in the Road to Wigan Pier which subsequently influenced Peterson himself to do the same. Suffice to quote just one line from the book to show how dim (or disingenuous depending on how charitable you’re feeling towards our revered self-help quack) Peterson is: “For the moment, the only possible course of any decent person, however much of a Tory or an anarchist by temperament, is to work for the establishment of Socialism.
Finally, to the commenters below: can we please move beyond this shallow, degenerate mudslinging of Left vs. Right? The so-called “Left”, as seemingly defined in the comments here, is a pale facsimile of true ‘left” thinking; they’re little more than capitalistic bien pensants. Whereas the “Right” seem to have lost all ability to think logically and dispassionately. Just one example: the frankly bizarre view that the UK “MSM” is broadly left-wing; it would take the average household bluebottle all of five minutes to place the editorial slant of the Daily Mail; Daily Express; Daily Telegraph; The Sun; The Daily Star comfortably on the “right”.
And don’t get me started on our resident Melanie Phillips Littlejohn Liddle, “Simon Denis” who argues that abortion is equitable to infanticide.
What fresh hell is this?
I have followed most of Professor Peterson’s lecture trail through Genesis. His teaching and analysis is just what the doctor ordered for the restoration of meaningful analysis and dialogue in Western culture.
I look forward to his teaching on Exodus.
Dr. Peterson’s scholarship is refreshing and invigorating, breathing new life into the ancient atrophied root and trunk of Judeo-Christian faith, thought and inspiration.
Thank you, Douglas, for the update, even though I am reading this a month after you posted it. But even so, the truths and profundities of biblical legacy are beyond time, bordering on the eternal, insofar as the Universe itself is founded upon the eternal One who, in the beginning, created the heavens and the earth. . .
and the man and the woman. The rest is history.
Between Jung and Dostoevsky and Peterson maybe we’ll get a few things figured out in the days to come.
Seek and we shall find. Knock, and the door will opened to us.
Since Dr. Peterson first surfaced on my radar screen back in 2016, and I had the good fortune to become acquainted with his point of view, I’ve become more comfortable considering him as a kind of Canadian Man For All Seasons.
I’m sure he would be the first to laugh at any Messianic accolades.
But why is it, really, that he is so necessary?
My immediate response to his intellect took hold and has never left. By welcome and competent demonstration, he gives us instruction on how to wrestle with bad ideas and prevent them from doing harm and mischief.
It appears that an awful lot of kettles are calling an awful lot of pots (that designated color) but that shouldn’t even be the point.
The point for me personally, is the ongoing story of our times: that a decent human being comes under attack for applying decency.
The world is a hell of a weight to carry on one’s shoulders.
I recall watching some of his last interviews a couple of years ago, with some measure of uncomfortable squirming in my chair, and within my consciousness, as the notion grew inside me that all was not well.
Elanor Rigby’s lonely people was on to something. But it is a massive undertaking, to take that one on.
It is a massive job, and requires more than one set of shoulders to hold up.
My very favorite thing? Dr. Peterson has the amazing courage to think out loud. No script. As pretty as a Miles Davis muted horn.
Hmm – I don’t trust this site (I’m not referring to the editorial content, incidentally)…
It’s still not working!
I liked Peterson’s books and videos, but now see him for another in the long line of false prophets; people who told anyone and everyone could how to live… but couldn’t follow their own advice. From Ted Haggard to Jim Bakker to Jimmey Swaggert and Jerry Fallwell Jr,, in the end we discover that Peterson couldn’t even follow his own twelve rules, particularly the most important ones, numbers 1, 6 and 8. I far prefer to take advice from those who actually aren’t hypocrites, people who actually do what the say, and practice what they preach. Count me out of the ‘welcome back Kotter’ crowd. Peterson’s ideas now ring very hollow, even though they remain, like the commandments that the others couldn’t follow, generally good advice.
So a professional driver is to be discounted on how to drive because he’s had an accident? You acknowledge that his advice is generally good; the messenger’s struggles do not discount the message.
Peterson never claims superiority to the vicissitudes of life. His whole message is founded on the understanding that everyone including himself is always one step away from a descent into some kind of hell, whether from within or without. And no one is immune. He is very sincere about that. His warnings are for himself as much as anyone, not because he thinks they are perfect antidotes but because he believes them to be the more helpful than other solutions. Your assessment is profoundly unfair, IMO.
Did I get this right? – the article is about a man who makes a fortune out of telling men to straighten their shoulders and clean their rooms – all in order to avoid being weak. And then his wife gets cancer and most likely needs someone to help her getting through. And he responds by increasing his dose of anxiety pills to the extent that he not only is incapable of lifting her up, but also shifts the family focus to himself.
I think I will hurry home from work today to kiss my husband a few extra times – in pure gratitude for him being secure enough in his manliness to find it unthinkable that he needs to control or limit my space in order to fully develop his.
You had me at “a man who makes a fortune”. I knew at that moment whatever followed would be full of contempt and likely uncharitable.
I believe we might have different cultural background – where I come from it’s neither good nor bad to “make a fortune”, i.e. you could instead say “make a living”. To me there is no negative value implied. The irony is first of all Mr Peterson’s patronizing advise and secondly his conclusion that men are higher up in hierarchies because of their inherent abilties to lead. Men are Order, women are Chaos… Not so much it seems.
Then why mention it? It’s a rhetorical move that is used to discredit. Could you start your criticism with ‘a man who makes a modest living’? No, not a cultural difference. Just me reading English.
I don’t think you understand him right. He never claimed that men are higher up in hierarchies because of their ability to lead.
Instead there are multiple hierarchies in life, e.g. more men in engineering, more women in child care and nursing, and this is driven mostly by biological differences and the difference in interests of men and women.
Also both order and chaos are necessary, what’s important is to have a balance.
I recommend watching his psychology lectures which elaborate clearer on his thinking.
And his reply to accusations of being photographed with that offensive t-shirt wearer included (I paraphrase from memory, and am no longer sure of the amount, either), “the guy had paid his 200$ to be photographed with me”.
What? You get paid to be photographed? I was a big admirer of Peterson’s theories up to that point.
I’m a great admirer of JP but I can’t disagree with you in relation to his collapse at the time his wife needed him most, shifting the focus to himself. I’ve had the very same thoughts myself.
It strikes me that Jordan Peterson is a kind of self-help guru for a particular demographic: a cohort seeking order and meaning to help them understand the challenges of the changing world we live in, and their declining role within it. Indeed, this is the role of all self help gurus ” make the suffering mean something, make me feel strong again, make me feel right again. The fact that Jordan throws in some stats and evidence to support some of his more outlandish ideological statements, not least in 12 reasons, is classic salesman territory: ‘You can believe me because I know some numbers’. His followers feel confident in their underlying sexism or religious righteousness because he presents as an evidence-led thinker. He makes them feel smart, justified and superior, even if they’re not. A shame they can’t see it.
Good boy [pats head]
Girl. But thanks Michael for that condescension. You have proven my point.
Did you mean “condescension”? I think you did, sweetheart.
And again. Keep it coming, sweetheart.
Ooh, the classic “I know you are but what am I”. Well-played, pumpkin.
To be fair mate , you’re coming across as a d**k
“a cohort seeking order and meaning to help them understand the challenges of the changing world we live in, and their declining role within it.”
Why don’t you come right out and say it? You mean men and boys. Besides the fact that his appeal is much broader than that, why would you think it’s necessary to belittle anyone’s concerns about meaning and purpose in the world? Men are bombarded daily with such dismissive messages and worse, and then are denigrated if they look to each other or anyone in order to figure out what is going on. One thing I am seeing more and more is the sex that is purported to have a greater capacity for empathy and compassion all too often has none for their opposite.
I subscribe to Unherd to read sensible articles about serious topics written by people who know their subject and, hopefully, who have no political or religious axes to grind. Bit of a disappointment, then, to read this article and later discover the comments. Dear me, “God”? Are you all deluded?
How dare Unherd, a free online magazine, post an article that Stanley Beardshall disagrees with. Maybe they should have run it past you first before publishing?
Yes, haha.
Unherd is libertarian ATL, but increasingly Daily Telegraph BTL!
No, I’m not deluded, but I’m reasonable enough to understand that, despite my view that religious texts and the evidence for God are ludicrously unbelievable, the vast majority of human beings have always believed in some kind of higher power and many highly intelligent today people believe in God and yet this doesn’t automatically negate any other achievements they may have to their name or any other unrelated claims they make.
It’s funny how a clever and educated author like Douglas Murray was fooled by a liar like Jordan Peterson.
In our lives we surely need Douglas Murray for his seminal books ‘The Strange Death of Europe’ and ‘The Madness of Crowds’. But we don’t need the liar and psycho Jordan Peterson.
Actually Peterson is not conservative, he does not understand or like Christianity. He’s been attacked by the Right for his lies and stupidity. Read ‘Jordanetics’ by Vox Day. You can buy it from Amazon or download it for free from some pirate sites.
You call him a liar without substantiation except to tell us to educate ourselves with some book. And who ever said he was a ‘conservative’? I am sure Douglas Murray wouldn’t say so. As far as I can tell, his only political drive is to oppose whatever leads to totalitarian statist policies, wherever that come from. What he’s really interested in is psychology as it can illuminate the big philosophical and religious narratives of our culture.
No, don’t read that book. It only summarizes what you should know from primary education.
One should have enough knowledge about dao, OT , NT and Chordata diverged from the Beloved Nephropidae. They had quite different evolution, something missed by the guru Jordan.
That may be a valid criticism, but how does that make him a liar?
The other option is JP is stupid. You can choose – either JP is a liar or he is stupid – you choose.
You are misinformed. There is a third option. You might be wrong.
No, your third option is false. I’ve read much, I’ve thought even more. Your third option is false.
Thank you for the laugh. I needed that this morning.
And your ‘comment’ has provided me with a rueful laugh, FS!
If you liked this, you will love the Guardian – these days it has a reality disconnect approaching that of Baghdad Bob.