Jordan Peterson content has taken over this blog, use the search function to find quotes

‘[JP] sees that communism has lead to lying delusional sadistic murderous groups, and to mysery [sic] at a magnitude largely higher than capitalism’

honestly I don’t even know where to begin…

  • war mongering by America in Iraq and then the Middle East and next Venezuela, entire nations are completely decimated, wars for profit and oil, all that bullshit by America could win any lying competition you wanna throw out
  • then add the death toll of genocides all over the globe by the colonising west, not just genocide but cultural and psychological decimation of native people, in Australia, the Caribbean, all through Asia, continuing today…
  • the west was built on outright slavery, sure that was prior to the 1900s when communist when down, but black people didn’t get the right to vote til recently and are still structurally disenfranchised (even just with voting), with the privatised industrialised for profit prison system (brought to you by capitalism),
  • like there is a lack of recognition of these realities
    • like the state regularly shooting or abusing black people… and as if slavery for black people is somehow less abhorrent than putting a white society in service working for the state… lol and
      working for jobs where people are paid below living wage, that’s like the worst of communism without even getting the idealistic goals…
      people starving in a country because it has a food shortage under communism, how is that worse than people getting scurvy or
      dying of lifestyle disease in fresh food deserts in a country of immeasurable wealth/ massive amounts of food being thrown out while people are homeless and going without meals…
      as if poor farmers in communist Russia were worse off than people in the first world dying because they don’t have access to health care in a wealthy country…
      also pretty sure rampant, unnecessary consumerism under capitalism (inbuilt obselence and a disposable culture because its cheaper to scale up) is what gave us the current ocean & wildlife destruction due to plastics, so add that to the tally…
      oh, and the intentional maintanance of extreme poverty in the third world because the first world is dependant on exploitation of cheap labour and resources to allow for profit… so add all the deaths by starvation/lack of sanitation/child labour in the third world too

    Across time and history, the sum total suffering is easily equal or more.

    It’s easy to project the shadow of humanity into the distant past or ‘over there’ and label it horrific while overlooking horrors closer to home, especially when it is normalised and sold to us as justified… that’s what humans do when shit is going down, they don’t riot because it’s normalised and justified just like it is now… our system is no less barbaric, and that would be obvious were it not for the victim blaming rhetoric ‘poor people are just lazy’, ‘black people are just less competent, they’re predisposed to crime’, etc etc etc…

    The nature of humanity is fundamentally flawed, regardless of economic system, blaming it on communism is a red herring.

    Initial thoughts:

    • Women have been shamed with books like ‘women who love too much’
    • Women have been shamed and rejected with cultural labels like ‘needy’ and ‘crazy’ for having emotional needs men couldn’t meet and emotional experiences and depth men couldn’t relate to due to their own emotional suppression
    • As a side note, when men pursue a woman (as in rom coms) it is considered romantic, when women do it is considered desperate, they are treated with scorn and derision (for example, tv show ‘crazy ex girlfriend)
    • Womens healthy neurological attachment needs have been pathologised and labelled codependency
    • Women have been pressured, shamed and expected to marry (female spinsters socially rejected, while bachelors labelled ‘eligible’); it is not a surprise they would rebel against such an uneven social structure
    • Men have chronically let women down (in part due to capitalist pressure and in part due to toxic masculinity); women have given up on being love fully by men and instead turn to women to meet their attachment needs
    • The use of Cathy Newman’s response to Jordan Peterson being characterised as man hating is projection; her anger is reactionary to JP’s denial of systemic abuse and discrimination against women

    One woman states ‘I see men as lower than me. I was very suppressed, so it’s a way for me to get my power back’.

    Another states ‘most women don’t want to need a man. Because the amount of pain we have been through… it resistance, it’s self denial and it’s avoidance’.

    • The use of the Gillette ad being dismissed as man hating and then the man acting like he needs to go elsewhere to ask women their thoughts: women are telling you loud and clear in the ad that you just minimised and dismissed. Don’t cat call and objectify us. Value us as equal humans. Don’t teach boys to shut down emotionally. Develop emotional maturity to match ours. Don’t use violence to solve conflict. Learn to address and resolve conflict healthily.

    What do men expect after centuries of own women as property, and then commodifying and objectifying us, that we will fall at their feet ?

    One woman states ‘improve themselves… in sex’.

    Phallic centric sex is the norm to the extent that the medical literature still denies the reality of female ejaculation. Porn focusses on aggression against women and not on meeting their pleasure needs. Statistics for female orgasm are appalling, where men expect sex to end once they come.

    ‘If I had a single thing for men to work on it would be disconnection. They disconnect from their own hearts. They act more from logic. War… they can disconnect from women’s experience and empathy so that they can have one night stands….

    ‘In men there’s this very stable security, a strength, protection, a forward movement. And what that feels like when a man is in his power is he creates this safe container which allows me to feel this blossoming’ ❤️ ‘which allows me to be in this receptivity, which is really important, because in this state… a female without a man in this world it kinda feels like you have to tense yourself up and become something you’re not… when that containment is absent I notice my anxiety levels go up… I feel like I have to compensate for an energy that I’m lacking’

    • In order for men to contain us they need to embody themselves and be whole… many women come to the (logical) conclusion that if men aren’t going to provide that, (which they generally don’t), then what do they have to offer us? Nothing. We may as well be free than live in containers that crush and devalue, rather than support us.
    • Women’s relationship starts with the fathers. What do we have? 2-3 generations of emotionally or physically absent fathers.

    ‘I don’t think men have to look for masculinity specifically, what I want is for men to start looking for their own unique individual authenticity… if a man stops resisting himself in all these various ways that society has taught him, he will find his own unique authentic divine expression of masculinity. That’s the problem is men are looking outwards thinking it’s something out ‘there’ that they can emulate’.

    • The man in the ad is representative of the fact women feel harassed and pestered. It is representative of what women are saying is their experience. Being heckled. Feeling threatened. Having men make public demonstrations for the purpose of dominance rather than connection.

    ‘What they really want is the real, authentic you’.


    Q&A quotes + response

    [3.04] well…

    Oh god the frog has started talking. That voice. Literally jolted me.

    [3.24] ‘We’re all subject to bad breaks and terrible luck’

    But not systemic oppression, apparently…

    We’re all given the sovereign right to organise our state’

    Women weren’t always. But that wasn’t oppression?

    [3.24] ‘I do believe in this ancient and fundamentally western idea that people are of intrinsic value

    Western liberal capitalism… with no social security? No minimum wage? War mongering? The west is built on pointless wars and colonisation involving repeated genocide… capitalism + lobbying creates wars for oil… And you think we made up the concept of valuing human life?? You’re tripping!!

    [4.08] woman next to him takes a deep breath and sighs

    Hahaha Jordan

    [4.20] his minute is long past up and he still hasn’t said anything

    [4.44] moderator ‘let me just draw your attention to the last part of your question…’

    … which you didn’t answer in any cohesive way

    … ‘that young men are needing saving from socialism, globalism and feminism, is there any truth to that in your mind?’

    They might need existential saving from the characterisation of the west as an oppressive patriarchy which is an absurb [sic?] proposition, and therefore that any action they may take that are forthright and ambitious, by participating in that system, are by the very nature of the system, destructive. It’s very difficult for me to understand how anybody can be properly motivated if that’s the fundamental view of society and male participation in it. And I don’t buy any of that. I think the idea that the west is fundamentally an oppressive patriarchy is an appalling idea and the notion that the proper way to view history as a battleground between ethnic identities or identities in general or between men and women borders on the pathological, and so maybe it exceeds bordering on the pathological….

    Simplying things a bit for the sake of your strawman there, Jordan

    [6.00] van… ‘if you’re being sold that it’s feminism or socialism that’s disenfranchising you… it’s been four decades of neoliberalism. It’s neoliberalism that’s smashed communities, made consumption and material acquisition dominant values in society, destroyed the workplace and made jobs insecure, and made our experiences of economy so unstable. If men feel disenfranchised, please let me reassure you that women feel disenfranchised as well because we are all living in this destabilised economy and we are all suffering from that consumer ideology.’

    59 seconds. Fucking nails it. Takes a drink of water.

    White politician defends the economy. Says Jordan’s book is good. Continues-

    ‘It’s true feminism hasn’t thrown a bomb and the worst violence could be the violence of the mind’

    The worst violence for a while male maybe! Women get raped, beaten and murdered by men. Hence feminism. 🙄 FFS (genocides of indigenous peoples or police violence against POC are other forms of violence worse than that ‘of the mind’ afflicting Jordan and Alex)

    Men are being told they’re doing the wrong and that they have been doing the wrong thing historically

    Yes. Owning women as property is wrong. Men are only told they’re doing the wrong thing when they are dehumanising or abusing women. FFS.

    Men today have lost their identity. Feminism has become a movement to overtake masculinity…’

    The future is female. Sorry to break it to you.

    [8.00] van responds, ‘I’m a feminist, I don’t want that, I don’t hate men’

    Nondescript white guy: ‘sure you do. Let’s look at the empirical evidence…’

    Thanks for that mate.

    It’s boys who are falling behind in school, it’s boys that are falling behind in University, highest rates of youth suicide, it’s a serious issue

    How is that feminisms fault?

    Consumerism, housing and financial stress, gaming, porn and social media addictions, breakdown of community, mothers overworked, neoliberal disenfranchisement… countless possible explanations, no reason to suspect feminism at the top of the list.

    [8.27, fragile white man] ‘There are movements persecuting men in today’s world’

    Van says that’s not true..

    well, it is. Legal persecution for men who act illegally, like raping and sexually assaulting women. Or abusing positions of power. ‘Held accountable’ can look a lot like persecution to people not used to or unwilling to take responsibility.

    [8.38] terri speaks. ‘It’s almost as though we’re talking about a structural issue, and you’re talking about a person issue. People who take personally the idea that we need to change structures are misreading what the complaint is that people have. The issue for me is that these structural rigidity of gender roles is that they hurt men, and they hurt women. They hurt both. They hurt men who want to stay home longer with their kids…. they hurt men [sic] in real physical ways because we do have a problem in this country where women are more likely to be the victims of violence at home, men are more likely to be the victims of violence in public, but in both its men committing the violence by and large. These rigid ideas of masculinity hurt everyone. So when we talk about feminism, when we talk about those structures it’s to create an equality for the benefit of everyone, and to get rid of the things that hold everyone back.’

    [9.43] JP: well the first thing I would say is I’m not anti-feminist per se-


    -Movement of talent of both sexes into the workplace given the rarity of talent-

    (This is a manifestor perspective. Generators are the majority and most of the workforce is about grunt work, not talent).

    ‘I will stand by my original statement that there’s a brand of more radical feminism that insists that our culture is best characterised as an oppressive patriarchy’

    So just acknowledging the patriarchy makes us a radical now??

    [10.16] ‘and I think that’s an appalling sociological doctrine and it has very negative sociological effects, and they won’t be limited to men,’

    Because being owned as property wasn’t psychologically harmful for women. Because implicit bias, being spoken over, being objectified, having double the workload is not harmful to women. Because the rape advocated in the bible wasn’t harmful to women. Wake up Jordan.

    [10.27] ‘if it’s true that there’s something toxic about masculinity per se’

    AGAIN Jordan. Toxic is an adjective. It describes the form of the noun. Red chair. Blue chair. It doesn’t mean chairs are inherently their adjective. I thought you were meant to be intelligent!!!!

    ‘… what that will mean is that as women adopt more masculine roles, traditionally, what is that toxicity suddenly going to go away?’

    He’s really struggling. Oh Jordan.

    [10.37] Terri: ‘that’s a strawman because no one says there’s anything toxic about masculinity per se. [jordan interrupts incredulously, Terri calmly explains]. ‘It’s a term that is used to describe forms of masculinity that are harmful for men and women. It’s not about masculinity per se. You must know…’

    [10.56] Jordan says he read the APA and he knows ‘perfectly well that this is no straw man’

    Ah Jordan. 🤦🏼‍♀️

    It’s not only devoted towards the most aggressive ends of masculine behaviour in a much broader… theres a much broader range of accusations that are underlying, that are under the surface than that.’

    Masculinity so fragile.

    The panel fails to clarify that toxic masculinity as a culture is pervasive as a spectrum, extreme behaviour is born out of problematic cultural norms.

    [Catherine]: The deindustrialisation of the West as jobs are exported to the developing world… when you remove from a man the right to stand before his family as a breadwinner… the removal of (especially unskilled) work among young men has a political consequence, and its been washing through the American system since the 1980s, the fraying of the new deal coalition… I don’t entirely agree with Jordan’s analysis but the problem can’t be entirely…

    [12.53-13.52] Cate speaks slowly, is interrupted at the minute mark, goes on to speak for another full minute, unapologetically; this is the confidence only someone born and socialised male could have, that their voice will be listened to.

    Milo appears on video. Jordan replies sincerely in real time. Moderator points out it was a video and he’s not going to reply. Kinda feel sorry for Jordan.

    Jordan says he teaches mainly women for 30 years and he wants people to adopt responsibility in their own lives.

    JP has explicitly stated he doesn’t want social change as he thinks change to the status quo is destabilising and dangerous. Therefore this advice to focus on personal responsibility is explicitly directed at what he labels ‘social justice warriors’ aka those interested in improving society, including politically; he has stated that ‘we’ can’t understand the nature of these changes, condescending and paternalistic.

    [17.28, question], why aren’t feminists addressing issues such as how fathers don’t get joint or any custody at all?

    This is literally the one single way men are structurally disenfranchised by the patriarchy, and it’s trotted out and held against women as if it’s a rebuttal to feminism and their responsibility. FFS. Work on norms for equal division of labour and paid paternal leave, and maybe the courts will start seeing you as caregivers.

    Or how so many men commit suicide. Why do so many people disregard this information when seeking to end gender inequality or not even acknowledge that this in in fact a problem’

    Toxic masculinity is the reason men commit suicide, clue in. This is also a red herring, women also commit suicide as (or more) often but are just not as successful.

    [18.38] van reiterates that in no point in human history were men oppressed for being men. Maybe for being working class or on the basis of ethnicity. Women feminists are straw manned.

    She is impassioned. The comments tone changes to dismissing her as crazy because she is a woman using her voice to assert herself.

    ‘We have democracy, and so the rules around manners have changed, as everyone has a voice, not a narrow… which by the way never included all men…’ [19.03] ‘difficult to get your heads around a new way of behaving and engaging, but it’s necessary, because we are actually a community, we are one society, we all have an equal right to participate’.

    She is responding to previous arguments where she was not given talking space. This is misinterpreted by viewers, as she is not directly addressing the question around paternity. Her points are valid though.

    [20.09, white politician], feminism has gone too far out of its bounds and is sometimes oppressing men. It is.

    Van has lost it, angry and replies sarcastically ‘I’m sorry if we’ve rejected our bounds’

    [note: it is an abusive tactic to label reactive abusive behaviour, such as female anger, as crazy, when it is in response to systemic abuse, especially abuse is publicly executed with a calm tone].

    White politician continues ‘individualism is the only answer to some of this. Identity politics is on the march, it’s eating away… the idea that we all think and behave the same way, it’s not true.’

    [20.58] van: you’re right, it’s not true

    It’s a great irony of Jordan that while he is decrying identity politics he is also dividing males and females into inflexible (and apparently inalienable) gender roles and also decrying feminists, social justice warriors, and the ‘radical’ left (by which he likely means not the portion of the left which is radical, but the whole of the left which he sees as synonymous with radical, judging by his above use of adjectives).

    Terri coming in with some sanity: the liberal party is down around 17% females, the Labour Party is up around 50%. ‘And that is because we didn’t just acknowledge inequality, we did something about it. We changed the way our rules work, we got more women into parliament. We changed our rules, but no one ever had to use them, because when you change the structures, suddenly women feel like they can run, they’re ready to put their names forward, and that’s what happened. We didn’t need to put it into place in a strict way, because we didn’t need to. We changed the culture by changing the rules.’

    [22.50]. Jordan is talking again. Why. Ugggghhhh. ‘There’s equal of opportunity, which we discussed briefly, which I think it an admirable goal. Then there’s equality of outcome, which I think is a impossib- I think it’s a totalitarian impossibility. I think it’s often conflated with equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome of course is the doctrine that every occupation should be occupied by people in precise proportion to portionality in the population… quotas on the base of group identity. So for example in canada, our prime minister, an enlightened soul [sarcasm, Jordan has called centrist traudeau a radical feminist] decided he would make 50% of the cabinet women, despite the fact that 25% of the people who were elected in his cabinet were female. He did not hire the people who were most qualified in his cabinet. And he did that to virtue signal to his base. And it turns out that was a big mistake.’

    [26.38] still no one has addressed the suicide/custody argument, but catherine makes a good point ‘I think it’s a lazy term ‘identity politics’. All politics is identity politics. Parties campaign on identity. ‘A party of individual freedom’, that’s an identity, it’s a concept.’

    [28.04] question for Jordan Peterson: do you believe stay at home mothers are adequately valued in today’s society?

    Jordan replies that when ‘his wife had smalls kids’ and they went out, ‘she was treated with less respect than she would have been had the kids not been with her… ‘Bothersome’… I think we do an awful lot of lying to women in our society’.

    Moderator: what sort of lies do you mean Jordan?

    That career is the most important thing in life.’

    The panel goes on to discuss but this question also goes unanswered and the key here is also: economics. The woman mentioned pressure to return to work. This is the liberal reduction in social security, centrelink punitive policies pushing women to return to work at younger and younger ages. Being a mother is no longer supported by the state as a job. In the most fundamental way, this question is about the unpaid labour of women. In a capitalist society, unless we pay women to raise children, they are being taken advantage of an oppressed. All other work is paid. If Jordan is so enthusiastic about children being at home with their mothers, there is a lot more that needs to be done than just telling 19 year old girls they don’t have to have a career. In a capitalist society, money is power. If women are to be independent and thus equal, they need to not be financially dependent on the fathers of their children. The current way of achieving that leaves a lot to be desired.

    [32.27] Alex, the liberal politician, talking sense (just this once). ‘We need policy’. He suggests tax incentives of equal value. Mentions subsidised child care.

    [33.30] question: you have a lot of ex-fans, so called ‘ex-lobsters’…

    😂 Jordan is going to be devastated to hear about this

    …’you talk about individual responsibility for things it’s impossible for individuals to have power over.. the extortionate housing market, things that are well out of our control. I want to know what is your answer to young people facing the really big problems, humanity, like the climate catastrophe, like economic crisis, like the precarious job market. Most of us are never going to be able to afford assets to have responsibility over. What is your advice beyond banal comments like ‘clean your room’?


    He tried to throw her off to avoid having to say he’s a climate change denier.

    [35.24] ‘They’re not precarious at all. Do you think your any worse off than your grandparents?

    Jordan in his privileged wealth bubble (since birth) isn’t aware of what’s happening in the ground.

    She answers ‘I think there are different challenges’. He aggressively repeats ‘do you think you are worse off than your grandparents?’

    How can jordan, a psychologist so preoccupied with security and stability, not recognise the housing crisis facing young people? Perhaps the privilege buffer.

    Jordan, we can’t put our rooms in order, because we don’t own any.

    [36:00] ‘Fundamentally, I’m a psychologist. People can do a tremendous amount of good by looking to their own inadequacies and the things they’re not doing in their own lives and starting to build themselves up as more powerful individuals… capable of expanding their career and their competence… capable of taking their place in the community as effective leaders. Capable of making wise decisions when it comes to making collective political decisions’.

    Again not recognising the very real systemic limitations. Doesn’t understand the periodic requirement for change, or the nature of revolution.

    [37.17] Moderator ‘do you think collective responsibility overrides individual responsibility in a huge issue like [climate change]?

    Jordan: No.

    ‘I think there are things within their personal purview that are more difficult to deal with and that they’re avoiding, and that generally the way they avoid them is by adopting pseudo moralistic stances on large scale social issues so they look good to their friends and their neighbours’

    As someone with a psych degree I wanna say

    1. I have seen this phenomena

    2. That doesn’t negate the necessity for social change which affects individuals ‘I can’t find a house’, ‘I was raped’, ‘Men speak over me’. These are not detached social issues which don’t affect us directly, individually, personally.

    3. Jordie… You’re projecting.

    PS. Individual responsibility is not new.

    [37.45, catherine] ‘when you can’t meet the rent, and you can’t keep the power on, you make a poor revolutionary’. [sidenote- Gate 49]

    ‘Whatever will we attempt to impose on the world has to come from some kind of authentic life.’

    [39.28, van] ‘we have to recognise we’re not powerless. There is a mass mobilisation against insecure work in this country, and it’s called the trade union movement… the vehicles for change, for you to add your own individual gift to a mass movement, they exist for you’.

    The essential question here is ‘do you want change? Van is saying yes. Jordan (throughout his work) says no.

    White politician: ‘that sounds like a communist attack on the free market as well.’ Incredulous laughter from catherine. ‘We’ve got people assaulting what makes your life so much better than your grandparents… in neoliberal society we have great benefits at our fingertips… you can do a lot in this society’.

    This privilege also relies on oppression.

    [34:05] Terri: it’s a bit Ann rand to say that people are altruistic for themselves. It’s not. It’s because people feel deeply deeply passionate about the challenges facing our time. My six year old talked to me about drought and climate change the other day. He’s not doing it to feel better and have his neighbours like him. He’s doing it out of a sense of genuine concern… the ACLU, young people protesting are not doing it because they want to be liked by their neighbours, they’re doing it because they have courage and the commitment to do it. And that’s brave’.


    [44.26] identity politics and Martin Luther king question…

    Oh god. Jordan has started talking about postmodernism and marxism. My will to continue is fading.

    [44.50] Blah blah blah… identify people by their group…

    what… like biological sex? Go home Jordan

    Group guilt to them by their group’

    What, like feminists? Clean your room jordan

    [jordan seems to have just clarified that marxism isn’t post modernism]

    [46.14] Terri makes a reasonable point in a kind and gentle tone that ‘maybe you just believe that representative democracy should actually be representative’

    Jordan: ‘should bricklayers have 50% representation?’

    Terri: ‘is bricklaying representative democracy?’

    This is a common tactic of Jordan’s to change the subject by asking an only partly related but mostly red herring retaliatory question. Possibly also a false equivalence. Didn’t work this time Jordie.


    Jordan goes on to essentially state that women should be doing menial tasks instead of going after positions of power… he is totally missing the point, just being obtuse. One reason for the wage gap is primary because more women are in menial and underpaid positions, such as cleaning. And the reason it is a patriarchy is precisely because men are the ones in position of power! It’s not necessarily that those men are not making decisions in women’s interests (though that could be argued), more than the flow on effect at all levels is that women are not considered equal in importance to men. Their voices are spoken over and seen as less important. Implicit bias considers them less competent. Their contribution is not valued equally. Their health issues are underfunded, underresearched, poorly represented. Until recently their basic sanitary products were taxed.

    Jordan is always preaching how men built the modern world because they work dangerous jobs. Jordie, the entire civilisation was literally built by women performing the life threatening task of delivering babies FOR FREE. and often under duress, as property, without access to birth control or restriction on abortion. Ridiculous.

    Beyond that, a group structure where the identity of the group is put above the merits of the individual IS in place- it’s called implicit bias and structural discrimination- and that’s the whole reason corrective quotas are required! Get a grip Jordan.

    Also, ‘why don’t we just have quotas everywhere’ is a straw man. Saying that men are doing bricklaying is a way of referring back to one sex difference that is biological- that men have more muscle strength due to testosterone. This implicitly references Jordan’s viewpoint that the inequality between males and females in justified by sex differences which righteously create rigid gender roles. However, Equal hiring has seen more women entering the dangerous trades, from oil rigs, construction, mechanics in the formula one pit, etc. Perhaps more women would, were it not for the discrimination and harassment they experience.


    savage and enjoyable article:

    This article is useful for its definition of toxic masculinity, but falls short on fully rebutting the claim that western society isn’t a patriarchy:

    Toxic masculinity describes the indoctrination of all people to accept certain behaviours, talents and personality traits as inherently male or female. This is damaging to all of us. It is responsible for speaking to men about the importance of keeping silent, the expressions of violence as manly, the objectification of women, “group think” around beauty standards, but most importantly: the right and masculine way of engaging with the world.

    Toxic masculinity promotes an apathetic, strong arm pursuit of life, one that does not allow for emotional expression, processing and healing, acceptance and validation of self. This creates a society that is unable to recover from trauma. Men are suffering under these conditions too.; National post article written by Jordan Peterson

    ‘The American Psychological Association (APA) recently released its Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men…. Make no mistake about it: this document constitutes an all-out assault on masculinity — or, to put it even more bluntly, on men.’

    ‘Yet there is no consensus among psychologists, for example, about the definition, let alone the existence, of, for example, “masculinity ideology.” There is also no agreement that gender exists solely in the form of “roles” that are learned (as opposed to innate) — although all reasonable scientists agree that much of human behaviour, including that related to sex, is learned.

    ‘The authors are claiming that men who socialize their boys in a traditional manner destroy their mental health…’

    ‘The document opens with the claim that “socialization for conforming to traditional masculinity ideology has been shown to limit males’ psychological development, constrain their behavior, result in gender role strain and gender role conflict, and negatively influence mental health” – a claim derived in no small part from the “research” published by the very people who wrote the guidelines, and one presented, like the definitions, with no indication whatsoever that this claim by no means constitutes anything resemblng established scientific fact.’


    ‘For men, especially insecure and socially dislocated men, the idea of “rationality” can be a kind of comfort blanket. Raised from birth with the stereotype that they are more “analytically intelligent” (in contrast to women, who are “emotionally intelligent”)…

    ‘for the Logic Guys, the purpose of using these words — the sacred, magic words like “logic,” “objectivity,” “reason,” “rationality,” “fact” — is not to invoke the actual concepts themselves. It’s more a kind of incantation, whereby declaring your argument the single “logical” and “rational” one magically makes it so — and by extension, makes you both smart and correct, regardless of the actual rigor or sources of your beliefs.’

    ‘The “redpill” metaphor here is telling, because it implies that obtaining knowledge and arguing well is not a skill that is slowly and indefinitely improved upon, but an achievement to be unlocked in a single moment: once you’ve swallowed the pill, you turn into a smart person, and from then on, all your opinions are correct.’

    .’…the use of the term “the Enlightenment” to refer to an historical period of discovery in philosophy and the sciences — a period that is often referenced by self-identified logic lovers as a sort of single-use power-up by society: first we were all lying around in mud like the serfs in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, then we did the Enlightenment (and by “we,” of course, they mean white European men), and then everything was smart until Marxists and feminists and poststructuralists messed it all up.

    In reality, “the Enlightenment” was composed of a loose, messy assortment of people with very different ideas (you can even include Marx as an Enlightenment philosopher, if you like )…. This does not mean we have to throw out the baby with the bathwater, but it does mean that “philosophy had one good school and then stopped being good in the 19th century” is… not a terribly sophisticated take, but one that seems more based in wanting to find a shortcut to superiority than good-faith inquiry.’

    According to his supporters… Ben Shapiro loves facts. Why? Well, because he says he loves facts. He’s not basing his assertions on feelings, and we know this because he says that he isn’t… By insisting on this interpretation of his own character, over and over, buoyed by the idolatrous support of his loyal fans and the snarky titles of his clickbait videos, Shapiro conjures into being an image of himself as The Rational Man. Say the magic words enough times, and the spell will be cast over your audience.’

    Linked article:

    ‘The men interviewed in the piece, once sweet and caring, started changing after going down a rabbit hole of extremist political content on YouTube and involving themselves in radical right-wing online communities. Convinced of their absolute correctness, these men became at first frustrated, then verbally abusive once they realized their female partners did not always agree with their new views. Any dialogue attempted by these men was not made — at least as far as their partners could tell — with the goal of exchanging views and opening themselves to being challenged. Their goal was to assert their beliefs as fact; to teach their partner the truth, as a Christian missionary might put it. Every woman interviewed in the article — including those who were more formally educated than their boyfriends — makes reference to their former partners belittling their intelligence and rationality.’

    Regarding logic in humans:

    “When men are talking to each other in any serious manner, that underlying threat of physicality is always there, especially if it’s a real conversation. It keeps the thing civilized to some degree. If you’re talking to a man who wouldn’t fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you’re talking to someone [for] whom you have absolutely no respect. But I can’t see any way … For example there’s a woman in Toronto who’s been organizing this movement, let’s say, against me and some other people who are going to do a free-speech event. And she managed to organize quite effectively, and she’s quite offensive, you might say. She compared us to Nazis, for example, publicly, using the Swastika, which wasn’t something I was all that fond of. But I’m defenceless against that kind of female insanity, because the techniques that I would use against a man who was employing those tactics are forbidden to me.”

    Full interview link:

    Interviewer: in a video you said that the problem with those angry women is that since at the end of the argument you cannot fight physically, you can’t really deal with them.

    Peterson: [hhh… laughs and shakes head. High pitch] That’s not what I said. I said that that’s one of the things that keeps conversations between men civil. Women can’t argue with angry women. Women are often bullied by angry women.

    This is a red herring. He has shifted the focus from men being victimised to women being victimised but his focus/blame remains on ‘crazy angry women’ who are out of control due to the supposed lack of threat of violence against them.

    This is likely a projection as Peterson is angry, crazy and a little out of control.

    Interviewer [unphased by mental gymnastics] ‘you said that (and I’m not trying to paraphrase you or put words into your mouth),

    Peterson: [interjects aggressively] you actually you are trying that directly

    Interviewer: it is things that you said. That you cannot deal with those, uh— [crazy hysterical

    Peterson: yes, but [dont try to tell me that you’re not putting words into my mouth]… because you’ve selected what you’re going to ask. You selected it very carefully, with a tremendous amount of forethought. And there’s a purpose for that.


    Peterson’s characterisation of Feminists as crazy can be taken in a long history of female suppression, where those who even spoke in public, let alone rallied against crushing levels of (unpaid) labour at home, or spousal emotional neglect could be institutionalised: NYtimes article with links

    Rough transcript:

    [0.29] IM: Brain hemispheres are unequal and asymmetrical, one of the hemispheres sees more. The master is the right hemisphere. People traditionally think of the left as the one that is dominant. Steep learning curve. The right is more reliable, sees more, understands more, like a high functioning buerocrat. Must not get involved with a certain point of view. Good reason why evolutionarily.

    [1.57] 25% of the entire cortex is inhibitory. Corpus collosum is inhibiting function in the other hemisphere. (He was at Evolutionary psychiatry meeting).

    [3.02] differentiation is very important for two elements to work together. Inhibition is one way of doing that. The two hemispheres are not easily compatible. Different qualities, goals, values.

    [7.46] right hemisphere opens up to possibilities… explores… (left hemisphere grasps, closes down to a certainty)

    (Left is logical. Right is creative. Left is yang, right is yin. Left is order, right is chaos).

    [7.55] IM: I loved in your talk you talked about chaos and order. If I may say so you seem to suggest it would be good, it would better if we could get rid of chaos. Whereas my view is that chaos and order are necessary for one an other And there is a proper balance.

    JP: ‘Yeah okay, yeah, okay, well, okay. That’s a deep a question as you could possibly ask. There’s a central theological issue… you know in genesis the proper environment of humanity is construed a garden… I see that as the optimal balance of chaos and order. Nature flourishes and is prolific, if you add harmony to that. You live in a garden. You’re supposed to tend the garden. Ok So the garden is created. It’s a walled space. Because eden is a walled space. Paradasia a walled garden. As soon as you make a wall, you try to keep what’s outside out. But you can’t because the boundaries between things are permeable. So if you’re going to have reality you’re going to a bounded space you’re going to have a Snake I. The garden. Then the question is what the hell should we do about that. Make the walls that no snake could possibly get in Or allow for the possibility of sneaks but Make yourself strong enough that we could contend with them. There’s answer there that goes straight to the question Why did god allow evil to exist in the world. It’s like Well do you make people safe or strong. And Strong is better. And Safe night not be commensurate with being. It might not be possible to exist and to be safe…

    OMFG god- ten minute mark- this rambling evasive non answer is basically the quintessential Jordan parody! Done by Jordan himself 😑

    The mastery of a topic is evidenced by the ability to express is simply and succinctly. Any year nine English teacher can tell you that.

    the chaos vs order yin yang question migiht be deep but it is not complicated. Jordan is grappling to reconcile his own inner conflict with not being able to accept and integrate the feminine. The Chinese, Jung, many great philosophers, this question has already been answered. Jordan is just an externalisation of the patriarchal society- and the biblical notion- struggling to accept that the feminine is valid and will be integrated and given equal space as we move into the future.

    The answer to the question was ‘yes I did say that, in fact i named my book ‘antidote to chaos’ and claimed order is superior, and obviously I’m wrong’

    He did not answer the question!



    What made Europe happen and made it so creative,” he explained, “is that Christianity was a right-brain religion … translated into a left-brain language [Greek]. So for many centuries you had this view that science and religion are essentially part of the same thing.”

    ‘the left brain is dominant for language. The right hemisphere, on the other hand, is implicated more strongly in emotional processing and representing the mental states of others. However, the distinctions aren’t as clear cut as the myth makes out – for instance, the right hemisphere is involved in processing some aspects of language, such as intonation and emphasis.’

    ‘Gazzaniga concluded, based on the interpreter phenomenon and other findings, that the left hemisphere is “inventive and interpreting”, whilst the right brain is “truthful and literal.’

    Annals of derp with transcript excerpts

    Viewing the interview as a transcript makes Peterson’s manipulation obvious. The short article above is worth a read.

    You can’t really tell, because Peterson refuses to say it. Like Ross Douthat or Bret Stephens in cases we’ve looked at, he wants his audience to hear it, but he doesn’t want the responsibility of having said it, so he keeps weaseling between saying it and denying it. Newman is trying to pin him down: “Well, are you saying this, and if not, what?” and he’s replying no, but he’s unable to give her an alternative.

    Nov 27 2018

    The dangerous underside of Jordan Peterson’s crusade against the humanities

    Peterson may be correct that, in some cases, universities have failed to strike the right balance between protecting minority rights and preserving liberal, democratic values, including freedom of speech. The Laurier incident is one of those cases. The problem is that Peterson folds this argument into a politically reactionary and often downright paranoid world view that appears designed to curry favour with the alt-right.

    “Islamophobia,” he has also tweeted, is “a word created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons.” The real cause of the recent wave of sexual assault allegations, he believes, is due to sex no longer being “enshrined in marriage.” In a conversation with Camille Paglia, he lamented that men can’t exert control over “crazy women” by physically beating them. He echoes Donald Trump on fake news, telling followers they can’t trust the media, and makes a point of admiring Trump’s intelligence and accomplishments.

    It seems indisputable: Peterson is now the most famous professor in Canada.

    What he is not, however, is the author of any lasting work of scholarship, the originator of any important idea, or a public intellectual of any scientific credibility or moral seriousness. Peterson’s sole discovery is that “postmodernism” can be usefully exploited alongside the more familiar, established populist scare tactics. His message, as the intellectual guru of the alt-right, is that humanity’s natural hierarchies are under attack, that the future of Western civilization hangs in the balance of this “war of ideas.”

    As a strategy to excite hysteria over the collapse of Western values, Peterson’s tack is effective: it provides a veneer of academic rationale for the widespread anti-intellectual suspicion that a class of decadent, ivory-tower elites who are intoxicated by European ideology are leading the way to cultural suicide. As a description of what the “postmodern” thinkers actually wrote, it is very flawed.

    While only a tiny minority of humanities professors teach Derrida, a majority of the courses are dedicated to critical thinking… What makes critical thinking “critical” is the tendency to read against the grain of accepted wisdom and to question the inherited power hierarchies that structure human relations. Peterson’s immense popularity on the far right lies precisely in his intellectual validation of those traditional power hierarchies as natural and necessary—a message perfectly attuned to those who feel dispossessed and threatened by movements for sexual and racial equality. Most of Peterson’s videos offer variations on the theme that human behavior is the product of an ancient “male dominance hierarchy” that separates winners from losers—and that any attempt to question or subvert this hierarchy will result in unhappiness for the individual or chaos for society.

    To fully grasp the depth of Peterson’s belief in power hierarchies, take his commitment to IQ testing: “If you don’t buy IQ research,” he has told his students, “then you might as well throw away all of psychology.” Peterson rejects the theory of multiple intelligences (emotional intelligence, musical intelligence, and so on) and insists that all of human intelligence is biologically determined, essentially unalterable, and expressed in a single number that can be ranked. Your IQ, he says, will govern where you end up in life. [article goes on to explain how this is flawed].

    Peterson knows what he stands for. He is fighting for the souls of our students, and his message, while deeply alienating to some, is immensely seductive to many others. We have an intellectual obligation to meet this threat directly and expose him for exactly what he is: a YouTube star who offers a wafer-thin intellectual validation for the political retrenchment of traditional hierarchies. Peterson is calling for war within the humanities. We should happily oblige.

    Open democracy: excerpts

    ‘the fact is that young men can now get respectable academic backing for reactionary views on race and sex, a moral high-ground over politically correct liberals, and a counter-cultural worldview packaged as a lifestyle brand from thinkers with university posts, arena speaking tours, columns in the broadsheets, and books published by Penguin Random House.’

    ‘Peterson and Pinker offer long-term validation to a raft of interrelated reactionary political positions, in a way that the alt right could never dream of doing.’

    ‘Peterson defends his model of traditional masculinity on the grounds that, “if men are pushed too hard to feminize, they will become more and more interested in harsh, fascist political ideology”, invoking Fight Club – as it happens a classic reference on the alt right – in illustration’

    ‘as Peterson himself puts it in 12 Rules for Life, “Lest We Forget: Ideas Have Consequences”.[5] Pinkerson has had flirtations with the ‘race science’ beloved of the alt right, promoting research arguing that Ashkenazi Jews have innately – on average – higher IQ. [see article for discussion]’

    ‘The ostensibly benign and platitudinous argument that we have to be race- and sex-blind and treat everyone as individuals obscures its radical libertarian logic; really treating everyone as an individual would mean an end to affirmative action, all-women shortlists and other mechanisms set up to mitigate historical injustices that continue to affect the life chances of disadvantaged groups.Does Peterson want this? The radical right certainly do. And framing debates about IQ as apolitical and ‘merely scientific’ hands them the justification.’

    ‘Peterson, with less of Pinker’s zen agreeableness, refers simply to “the insane and incomprehensible postmodern insistence that all gender differences are socially constructed”.

    There are two extreme positions and one moderate and reasonable one. Peterson is not moderate, by positioning himself as a reactionary against the leftist position ‘all constructed’, he ends up saying ‘all biological’.


    ‘the fact is that young men can now get respectable academic backing for reactionary views on race and sex, a moral high-ground over politically correct liberals, and a counter-cultural worldview packaged as a lifestyle brand from thinkers with university posts, arena speaking tours, columns in the broadsheets, and books published by Penguin Random House.’

    ‘Peterson and Pinker offer long-term validation to a raft of interrelated reactionary political positions, in a way that the alt right could never dream of doing.’

    ‘Peterson defends his model of traditional masculinity on the grounds that, “if men are pushed too hard to feminize, they will become more and more interested in harsh, fascist political ideology”, invoking Fight Club – as it happens a classic reference on the alt right – in illustration’

    ‘as Peterson himself puts it in 12 Rules for Life, “Lest We Forget: Ideas Have Consequences”.[5] Pinkerson has had flirtations with the ‘race science’ beloved of the alt right, promoting research arguing that Ashkenazi Jews have innately – on average – higher IQ. [see article for discussion]’

    ‘The ostensibly benign and platitudinous argument that we have to be race- and sex-blind and treat everyone as individuals obscures its radical libertarian logic; really treating everyone as an individual would mean an end to affirmative action, all-women shortlists and other mechanisms set up to mitigate historical injustices that continue to affect the life chances of disadvantaged groups.Does Peterson want this? The radical right certainly do. And framing debates about IQ as apolitical and ‘merely scientific’ hands them the justification.’

    ‘Peterson, with less of Pinker’s zen agreeableness, refers simply to “the insane and incomprehensible postmodern insistence that all gender differences are socially constructed”.

    There are two extreme positions and one moderate and reasonable one. Peterson is not moderate, by positioning himself as a reactionary against the leftist position ‘all constructed’, he ends up saying ‘all biological’.


    Is it all just a wishy-washy philosophy of individualism paradoxically based on conforming to one idea, a misguided attempt to reconcile the probing, questioning vocation of science with the supposedly eternal truths bequeathed by religious fables?


    This made him a cause célèbre, and hours of his eclectic, freewheeling, evangelical YouTube lectures had soon been devoured by a predominantly young, male audience, rudderless amid the uncertainties unleashed by a new era of political correctness and changing sexual politics. In Peterson, they found familiar psychological moorings, attracted to the patina of scientific rigour in which he dressed his advocacy of traditional gender roles.


    JP: “If I had my druthers I’d rather not be speaking politically at all… So I’ve stepped into the political realm, and the problem with that is it’s a polarising realm. I’ve tried to counter-balance that with the emphasis on individual responsibility. I’m hoping that the net consequence of that is more good than harm.”

    Of course, it’s more than a little disingenuous of Peterson to claim he’s a reluctant participant in cultural politics; this is, after all, precisely what animates his increasingly obsessive vendetta against the “indoctrination cults” of “totalitarian” left-wing academia.

    Furthermore, for all that Peterson claims to have had politics thrust upon him, he has certainly borne his cross with eagerness. His Twitter feed continually promotes the views of dark money-financed, energy-lobbyist-front think-tanks – such as Charles Koch’s Human Progress – which peddle the deliberately misleading notion of “absolute wealth”, which is essentially a smokescreen for justifying relative wealth inequality

    When I put it to Peterson that the British middle class are increasingly turning to food banks, he explains this airily away not as the result of deliberate, ideologically-motivated policies – austerity as a cover for the massive, unprecedented upward transfer of wealth to the 1 percent, say – but suggests, somewhat feebly, that “the rise of the Chinese and Indian middle class has been purchased at the expense of the upward mobility of the Western working-class”, as though it were all one big zero-sum cake. Indeed, whenever Peterson comes close to acknowledging the validity of basic progressive notions such as wealth redistribution or equality of opportunity – “I’m not anti-left,” he protests, “I’m anti-radical left” – he immediately hides behind the mantra: “But we don’t know how deep the problem goes.”


    [JP’s] great insight – that the individual sits at the centre of Western philosophy – came to him in a dream (as did many of his intellectual hero Carl Jung’s ideas) in which he was suspended under the dome of a cathedral, the centre of an architectural cross, which “placed me at the centre of Being itself, and there was no escape. It took me months to understand what this meant… [The] centre is occupied by the individual. The centre is marked by the cross, as X marks the spot. Existence at that cross is suffering and transformation – and that fact, above all, needs to be voluntarily accepted.”


    After reading a few dozen pages of the book, you feel as though you’ve somehow found your way onto the ledge of a very tall building and are now being talked down.

    But the chief problem with the book isn’t that the rules are useless, banal or vague to the point of meaninglessness (see Rule 3: “Make friends with people who want the best for you”). Nor is it that some of it is politically disempowering – insisting, as does Rule 6, that you “Set your house in perfect order before you criticise the world”

    No, the real problems are that it misuses science for unacknowledged political ends; that it grotesquely misrepresents Peterson’s intellectual opponents; and that it requires absurd philosophical and logical gymnastics to render the supposedly scientific standpoint compatible with his religious convictions (he has never entirely nailed his colours to the mast when it comes to belief in God, stating only that “I act as though I do”), which he partially skirts around by claiming that “scientific truth is different from religious truth” (precisely the argument of neo-Marxist philosopher Jean-François Loyotard’s book The Postmodern Condition, ironically enough).


    “The fundamental issue with chapter one,” Peterson tells me, “is that I wanted to make the case that you cannot lay hierarchical structures at the feet of the sociopolitical realm.”

    Evidently irked by Peterson’s intellectual overreaching, Myers claims that Peterson has “built a case on false facts and distortions of general observations from the scientific literature. He has not demonstrated anything about socio-cultural constructions. Not only does he get the evidence wrong, he can’t construct any kind of logical argument…”

    Worse still, Myers argues, there is an ideological motive for all this: “Peterson is distorting the evidence to fit an agenda… It’s appalling the degree to which this man is asserting nonsense with such smug confidence. This man is lying to you.”

    So much for Rule 8: “Tell the truth – or, at least, don’t lie.”

    You’re never as ideological as when you believe you’re not being ideological, and so when Peterson writes, at the start of a sub-chapter titled “The Nature of Nature”, that “it is a truism of biology that evolution is conservative”, he is presenting – for entirely ideological ends – an obvious fact about the slow march of evolution as an indisputable truth of how our societies work, despite all sorts of salient details making the parallel unworkable.


    I ask him whether – within such an evolutionary framework – socialism and feminism might be considered adaptive responses to our awareness of systemic realities such as global warming or the ultimate un-sustainability of capitalism’s entirely irrational model of growth for growth’s sake (and the type of competitive, risk-addicted masculinity that fuels it). He briefly concurs, before backtracking: “Not feminism, but the feminine.”


    “Make no mistake about it,” Peterson has tweeted, not at all hyperbolically, “the aim of the radical left is the destruction of even the idea of competence”

    So badly – and wilfully – does Peterson misrepresent his intellectual adversaries that he’s able to tweet, only partly sarcastically, that “science is a social construct, remember? That’s why planes fly.”

    If it were just a case of YouTube clickbait or polemics for conservative podcasts it would be more excusable, but the same deliberate misrepresentations and falsifications crop up in Peterson’s lectures. Take this one, which begins with a ludicrously hyperbolic ad hominem describing Foucault as a “vengeful misfit”, adding: “a more reprehensible figure you could hardly ever discover, or even dream up”. So far, so moderate.

    I ask whether, neck-deep involvement in the culture wars notwithstanding, he feels any moral obligation to depict these figures to his students more faithfully. He mentions the inevitable “oversimplification” involved in dealing with “this identity politics mess. The question is how do you trace its development? So you say, rather casually: let’s attribute it to Marxism, first of all, and then the union of Marxism with the kind of postmodernism that was put forward by Derrida and Foucault. It’s like: Jesus, you’re summarising an unbelievably complicated problem in, like, 15 seconds. And the nuance is going to be lost. The problem is there is a problem with identity politics, and I really do believe that it’s a terribly divisive problem.”


    The clip finishes with Peterson offering a caricatured “postmodernist neo-Marxist” view that “the only reason the West functions is because it has raped the rest of humanity and the planet”, which he follows with an uncharacteristic and telling silence before adding, again tellingly, “the less said about that the better”.

    Which is perhaps why 12 Rules for Life doesn’t have an index entry for capitalism, or why Peterson’s presentation of historical atrocities doesn’t dwell on slavery, upon which the great civilising beacon of American wealth and enterprise was founded. A sin of omission, as he would himself call it.


    It’s somewhat curious that Peterson’s caricature of his intellectual foes’ supposed rejection of scientific evidence is made while giving Jung centre-stage, a thinker whose totally discredited and entirely unscientific theories of universal archetypes were derived from personal dreams and fabricated “research”.


    Interviewer: you don’t feel that globally men have the better end of the stick?

    Peterson: No! Noo I don’t believe that globally men have the better end of the stick. What- I don’t even understand why people would even Begin to conceptualise the world that way. Better in what way?

    Interviewer: roles of power… in businesses… politically… men pretty much rule the world. No?

    Peterson: Well, what about in warfare? What about in dangerous jobs? Who gets killed in war, who fights in war? Men.

    This is a red herring and does not follow logically from the question.

    The answer to the question ‘do men hold the power’ is answered with ‘men pay the cost of holding the power and the decisions they make with that power (such as going to war, and mining). They also take the reward from those jobs and the business that war creates.

    Interviewer: you have women of war, soldiers in the army, nowadays, it’s opening more and more.

    This is a good rebuttal, women were not allowed to join the army as soldiers. They did however serve in the war as nurses in very dangerous areas, a point which Peterson also totally glosses over. He goes on to completely refuse to address this point, a tactic he uses often.

    Peterson: well, no, we’re not going to go down that…

    Interviewer: is a woman soldier not as good as a man soldier?

    Peterson: I don’t know.

    Peterson’s unaddressed rage following this interview became evident in his dreams following the interview:


    This same theme was discussed in the 2018 ABC interview by comedian Tom Ballard who placated Peterson:

    Peterson’s evasive rebuttal to female oppression throughout history amounts to ‘everyone had it bad’ and ‘men and women helped each other’.

    Dodgy motherfucker.

    The compensatory actions you see as benefiting women at the expense of men are required because of implicit bias. It’s existence is scientifically well established via the psychology department—not humanities.

    ‘What right don’t women have?’

    A hundred years ago the right was to vote. Two hundred years ago the right would’ve been to own property. Before that, women themselves were property (and in some countries, they still are). These days in the West, the discrimination is more subtle. Legally we have achieved equality but socially we have not. When the feminine is considered as valid and valuable as the masculine, we have equality. For example, it’s now socially acceptable for women to wear pants. However, it is not socially acceptable for a man to wear a skirt (unless it’s a joke, and people will laugh). It is socially acceptable to call a female ‘dude’, or like ‘hey guys’, but it is not socially acceptable for a male vice versa ‘pussy’ is a derogatory term, ‘don’t be a girl’. That’s just a basic surface level example of the way the feminine is suppressed, and it’s as toxic for men as it is for women. And despite whatever stereotypes you may hold in your head, that is what feminism is for. For the expression of both masculine and feminine energy in all humans to be socially condoned.

    [1 min] ‘Author of many books’…. just two. Lol. One of them took 16 years lol.

    [11.08] ‘that you would go to University… that’s just a given, an unspoken expectation’

    Jordan comes from a very privileged background. He acknowledges here that this is not the case for the working class.

    [12.07] ‘when you hear people on the more socialist end of the distribution talk about barriers to education, they often talk about cost. And sometimes cost is a barrier’

    This is a dismissive with a very light wave of the hand.

    [12.20] ‘For my friends, money was never the reason they didn’t pursue education, it was more a truncated view of time… jobs aplenty… working on the oil rigs was tough cold work… it was wise for working class people to work those jobs… difficult, dangerous, frigid, rough…’

    [14mins Wife] ‘lots of the grade three boys were in love with her… we used to play chess and croquet together… she always had a good vicious sense of humour. It’s actually one of the things I admire about my wife. When we’ve had our verbal disputes… she can string together a sequence of insults that’s so hair raising you have to laugh’

    [15mins] ‘girls with brothers can get along with guys… Guys show love and affection with insults and jabs and jeers… if you don’t have brothers girls are like ‘oh that’s so rude”

    This is toxic masculinity. Jordan only does interview with conservative outlets that are sympathetic to his position or are inept. The exception is the GQ interview, where they didn’t look into it, Jordan was caught off guard and it shows with him being irrational and aggressive.

    How do you sustain that [marriage]? Some things need to be a given. Attraction.

    [17 mins] ‘Women don’t like the odor of men who have rh blood factors who would be likely to produce still born babies…. smell is a very deep sense’

    [23.55] Banality… trust, truth in relationships…


    JPCon: Richard wolff & Marx

    This is a summary with some additions of a talk done at the ‘responding to Jordan Peterson in lieu of a debate’ conference. One of many (16) talks done at that event.

    Abridged video:

    New symbolism project aiming to critique undermine and outgrow capitalist realist and reactionary political discourses 💜

    1.50 ‘Multigenerational struggle towards justice. Rather than just “that’s been done. clean your room, go back to work, get with the system Bucko”.

    Just below the surface or sometimes obviously… reactionary/capitalist realist message…

    [2.35] ‘His entire message of self help, he couches it in a rhetoric ‘this is what the left doesn’t want you to know’.. stereotype that we don’t want to have serious rigorous critical conversations.’

    ‘when someone comes along and says look, you’ve made a mistake in this fundamental proposition, it’s like yes, great! That means I can make progress towards a more solid theory of being’

    Note this is not how he responds in reality to people (especially females) who challenge his fundamental assumptions.

    This clip is reasonable- however he sensors himself and feeds a stereotype of ‘the left’ in his own mind, the scary postmodernism Marxist feminists that he has written off.

    [4.36] ‘lumped together everything he doesn’t like in the world and says it’s that- them’

    Very divisive.

    [discussion of Jordan saying no one would debate him and then obstructing debate with Richard wolff]

    [7.14 clip of Peterson talking about real marxism]

    [8.00] What every responsible person needs to know about capitalism. By Richard wolff.

    [8.28] have been a professor of economics all my life and have looked hard to find marxists at the various universities… they were hard to find. There were few and they kept their mouth shut. So I have no idea what he is talking about. He and I are inhabiting a different planet.

    Can’t hold marxism accountable for Stalin anymore than we hold Christianity responsible for the inquisition or genocide/colonisation.

    [10.28] Capitalism and the Marxist critique of it.


    I like his new bearded look! An overdue improvement I think.

    ‘Make hay while the sun shines’


    Ironic that he (masculine order) needs other people (females) to schedule him.

    [1.44] ‘It’s a sophisticated discussion, or at least as sophisticated as I can make it’

    Yep. Humble. This makes me gloat and respect him simultaneously.

    [2.26]. ‘Afterwards I talk to 150 and they’re putting their lives back together and they’re thrilled about it’

    He’s happy he’s helping people heal. As a psychologist he’s very effective. The issue is when he is political, or guiding people to build their lives on a foundation which is not ultimately based in kindness and compassion but instead on conspiracy theory fear. For some people ideas are not just ideas.

    [2.22] ‘they’ve got married, or they’re gonna have kids…’

    Not everyone should live by homogenised values. Ultimately this might not end well for them, as it assumes it will.

    [3.01] ‘people have to trust you to tell you that their lives weren’t going so well’

    This is true. And it is the reason it is so important to be thorough with analysing Jordan’s ideas. Because people who need guidance trust his to lead them.

    [3.34] ‘he had a son, he really wanted to do right by him, he was looking for ethical and moral guidance…’

    This is the problem. Jordan isn’t an academic. He’s a flipping church. Church of Jordan. He wrote a new bible. And his church is deeply politicised. Jesus would’ve known better than to comment on politics as right/wrong. And didn’t have all this baggage. Why is Jordan trying to improve on Jesus? Shit, I guess the problem is actually that the bible is misogynistic and patriarchal, and he thinks that’s the reality Jesus taught. The bible is just another book like his written by flawed and prejudiced humans. Jordan isn’t the messiah anymore than those guys were.


    Sold 2 million copies of 12 rules. 800,000 followers on twitter. 1.4 million followers on YouTube. 65/35 male to female.

    [0.47] ‘they’re hungry for a discussion of the relationship between responsibility and meaning. We haven’t had that discussion in our culture for fifty years. We’ve focussed on rights, freedom and impulsive pleasure…’

    AKA he wants to go back to the 1950’s. this is why people say that.

    [1.12] ‘If people are moored shallowly, then storms wreck them’… courage… responsibility… mature… why it’s a good thing to be an adult…

    Benign psychological wisdom.

    [4.02] ‘Our culture confuses men’s desire for achievement and competence with the patriarchal desire for tyrannical power’

    Dominance doesn’t need to be tyrannical for it to exist as a system of power. The definition of patriarchy as ‘a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it’. This is not debatable unless you first conflate patriarchy with tyranny (‘cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control’) and then deny its tyrannical to deny its patriarchal. JP doesn’t think male dominance is unreasonable because he thinks it’s justified by competence and biology.

    (Interviewer) ‘Why is order masculine?’

    [4.56] ‘In what sense is our society male dominated?’ … most people in prison, homeless, commuting violent suicide, dying in war are men

    [5.41] when he’s saying that men are badly affected so that means it’s not patriarchal- false, it’s just because of patriarchy & toxic masculinity combined with capitalism! This doesn’t discount the fact that they are also overrepresented in positions of “power”- it’s men that are putting them in prisons, men commit more crimes rather than there being a bias against men, at present if anything courts are biased in favour of white affluent men.

    [6.15] (speaks over her) ‘This is a trope that people just accept, western society is a male dominated patriarchy.. it’s like, no it’s not. That’s not true.

    ‘And even if it has a patriarchal structure to some degree the fundamental basis of that [heirarchial] structure is not power, it’s competence’

    He thinks it’s just the natural order of things for males to dominate, that’s why he doesn’t think patriarchy exists.

    [6.51] ‘Only when it degenerates into tyranny that the fundamental relationships between people become dependant on power’

    He only acknowledges tyrannical power- he doesn’t understand systemic power.

    [8.15] (interviewer) Professions women were barred from. Men were the ones guarding entry. Technology. The pill. Legal changes allowed women to be full legal beings and own property. Culture still lags behind.

    [9.49] ‘this whole patriarchy thing, I think you have no idea how pernicious and dangerous it is. Men and women throughout history have fundamentally cooperated to push back against the absolute catastrophe of existence… to look backwards and say well basically men took the upper hand and persecuted women in this tyrannical patriarchy, dreadful misreading of history, terrible thing to teach young women and horrible to inflict upon men’

    (Interviewer) like saying slavery in the us was everyone cooperating- they were owned by fathers and then husbands

    JP: only the pill and tampons emanicipated women, not from a supposed patriarchy.

    Interviewer: yes the pill, Dishwasher, whitegoods, labour saving devices, campaign for the vote.

    Jp: agrees.

    She begins to ask a follow up question, he speaks over her.

    JP: ‘Why would you even want to look at history like that?’

    (Interviewer) Those who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat it, abortion rights are fundamental to women’s

    [12.00] Ohhhhh damn she went there hahaha. He’s a religious man at heart but too smart to make anti-abortion comments

    He’s so white west ethno centric that he has no conception of societies where women also do manual labour, sometimes the bulk of it

    [12.58]. By ‘not doing anyone any good’ he means it’s not doing MEN any good. Lol

    [14.15]. ‘Perhaps there’s more women in the social sciences because women are just cleverer. Under your doctorate..’ 😅

    ‘You talk in apocalyptic terms’… she’s totally right! As a psychologist he should know better than to catastrophise. He’s constantly catastrophising. Maybe that’s why he’s anxious and depressed 🧐

    Also along that train of through- he’s all ‘be a feminist and see how that affects your relationships’ – in would seem that in this interview one person is emotionally healthy and functioning, the other has dysfunctional beliefs and mood disorders…. 😬

    [17.26]. Abusive male rhetoric. ‘If you’re grateful for me putting the roof over your head, that means I’m not abusing you’

    Dumb. Manipulative. Emotionally chaotic.

    [17.35]. Sanitation & technology are not mutually exclusive with patriarchy- they’re certainly not mutually exclusive with tyranny!- and they’re not solely the product of men!! So many discoveries and so much work done by women has just been white washed from western historical accounts

    [18.33]. He’s so aggressive and condescending, baits her, attacks her, won’t let her finish an idea.

    [18.41] ‘I’m not really sure I’m going to be able to help the Neanderthals at this point by giving up some money’

    Helen Lewis comments on this interview Here

    Condensed typed version of interview with foreword

    JP: ‘I’ve really been trying to understand the underlying psychology of post-modernism and it’s relationship with neo-marxism and then the spread of that into the universities and the spread of that into the universities and the effect of the on the culture…. I’ve presented my understanding… Steven Hicks ‘explaining post modernism’ criticised for being too right wing… I would say he’s middle of the road, I would classify him as the classic liberal… identified it with the general tricksters, Derrida, foccant and Lacoste.. I’d like to know what you think about postmodernism and why you think it’s been so attractive’

    Reply: ‘My explanation is there is no authentic 1960s point of view in any of the elite universities. The most liberated minds did not go onto graduate school. Huge cohort of very radical Jews, genuine passionate marxists with my own eyes. They were not word choppers. They used the language of the people and lived by their own convictions. They were against the graduate schools. The radicals either dropped out of college and went off to create communes. OR they were taking acid and destroyed their brains. [3.20]. The legacy of the 60s got truncated. What they represent, the biggest influence on foccoult was waiting for Godot. Nothing to do with the authentic legacy of the 1960s which was about multiculturalism. It was a turn toward the body and sensory experience. Not this cynical removal from experience, which was a French import. The real revolution was about jung and seeing the cosmos in mythological terms. Those who took over the universities were careerists. [5.35] this was an elitist form from the start. It was not progressive. It was not revolutionary. It was reactionary. It was a desperate attempt to hold on to what had happened before the 1960s revolution. This ‘post mdoernist’ thing, as superior attitude… going through the art finding all the evidence of racism, check, sexism, check, homophobia, check. This was not the sensory based revolution of the 1960s. They’re frauds’.

    [6.41] JP: about ‘The destruction of the work of art… I really liked reading neitze, his discussion of ‘resentamol’, okay, resentment’. A tremendous amount of the… driven by resentment of virtually an merit of competence or aesthetic.. most people who are as intelligent as acedemics make more money in the private sphere… the reduction to everything to nothing more than a power game.. seems to be jealousy and resentment.’

    [8.08] ‘these people who say that art if nothing more than an ideological movement by an elite against another group… these people are hopelessly middle brow… Marxism does not recognise any kind of spiritual dimension… I’m an atheistic who finds world religions as art… as the best way to understand the universe… the true revolution would have been to make the core curriculum to be the great religions of the world.. the real 60s vision was about exaltation, cosmos consciousness… rejected by these intellectual midgets… I represent a challenge to this from the perspective of art. It is nonsense as post-structuralism that reality, everything we can know is meditated by words, including gender…’

    Just because it’s not only mediated by words, doesn’t mean that it it’s not mediated by the mind, which subconsciously processes meaning and archetypes, and through which we are conditioned by the culture to think, act and be a certain way… and from the mind which is not separate to the emotions, but IS separate to the body (the sacral, the spleen), and the soul/spirit.

    [9.39] ‘I’m teaching students who’s Major is ceramics or dance.. who understand reality in terms of the body through sensory activation’

    Very beautiful, very inline with human design.

    ‘Collapse into a snide postmodernism as an utter misunderstanding of culture. Pathetic attempt to continue the old heroism of the avante guarde… pop art killed the avant guarde.. andy Warhol embraced it and that was the end of avant guarde… hopelessly derivative… that somehow superior view of reality

    [11.55] authentic leftism is populist. It is based on working class language…


    0:34 “he’s very bright, extraordinarily articulate, in some ways a compelling speaker.. When I read him, I sense a lot of suppressed rage in him… in fact I think his voice is choking with rage a lot of the time.


    0:39 “it’s interesting because He talks about rage, that you need to deal with it, I don’t think he understands how angry he is… his websites, The comments are full of rage…. Now that’s an energetic thing. It’s his energy that drives people as much as what he actually teaches.”

    1:20 “I’m all in favour of not mandating language… On the other hand… he basically advocates repression. In his book he talks about how An angry 2 year old child needs to be sit by themselves until they get over it. Rather than understanding… what human contact they need to move through the anger…. it’s interesting when he talks about them as children, little vermin’s. Little monsters and so on…’

    2:04 ‘Fundamentally I see him as an agent of repression. Posing as agent of libertarianism.’

    2:20 …’bee in his bonnet. Conspiracies by left wing conspiracies seem to be his bet noir. Being a left wing intellectual myself, I’d like to talk to him sometime and say, what are you so upset about Jordan?’

    …’He seems to pick ideologies to attack and abhor and picks ideologies that are just as muderous sometimes.’

    As far as the assertion of post- modernism being ‘marxism in disguise’ (forming the basis of his thesis):

    ⁃ Marxism was alive and well in Europe in 1961-1967 when seminal post-modern texts were written

    ⁃ Marxism is not taboo (unless you’re a conservative), influential philosophers alive today are Marxist—and these often have harsh criticisms of post-modernism

    ⁃ He claims class conflict was replaced with oppressed/oppressor. Rich vs poor is not the only tenant of marxism, otherwise not only are liberals are Marxist, but by this logic any ideology involving group conflict is Marxist, fascists who identify oppressive societal elements are Marxist, and any use of the word becomes meaningless.

    ⁃ Neomarxism =/= postmodernism

    ⁃ Rather than simply draw parallels between the two, he attributes malicious intent where there is no evidence of it, persecutionary. Uses words like ‘treacherous’ to describe historical thinkers

    His critiques of Derrida and focault are factually incorrect

    ⁃ claims they reject science

    ⁃ claims that they don’t believe in the individual, when they actually say that ‘the individual subject is not a simple rationally autonomous and transparent being… Must be able to place yourself in a discursive practice’. Derrida said the subject is indispensable but needs to be situated, the issue is ‘Where it comes from, and how it functions’, (which is the question at hand about Peterson, really).

    ⁃ JP claims they are pro-group: Derrida himself is critical of group alligences not just because they exclude, but because any binary distinction will be sustained by its own negation. And therefore group identities are not set in stone and should be questioned.

    – Focoult states identities (EG race, sexuality) are defined by the powers that discriminate against them. Power is the ability to affect society or individuals, and can be good or bad

    [2.50] Claiming he is misunderstood, not what he is ‘actually saying’. People on the left are trying to summary his ideological view. He is so consistently vague this is near impossible.

    [3.20] (quoting article ‘the intellectual we deserve’) References MOM: humans generate meaning/figure out how to act.

    [4.39] (of jp): ‘many human stories have common moral lessons’

    this is benign, unremarkable common sense

    [6.00] the content seems deep and important. But is word salad and is not particular profound. Padded abstract, vague, unfalsifiable language. Extensive rambling basically saying we have moral inner conflicts we have to resolve.

    [7.20] if you can’t explain something simply, you don’t understand it well enough. Except he’s not even actually saying much.

    [7.40] more complicating and grandising simple ideas

    [9.15] mills said… ‘verbosity to cover up a lack of profundity’… ‘splendid lack of intelligibility’… ‘so rigidly confined to such a high level of abstraction…’

    [10.15]… ‘done to intimidate you into casually accepting what Peterson is saying. You feel inadequate or stupid to approach critiqueing his work’


    His epigraph quotes the bible. ‘I will utter things that have kept secret from the foundation of the world’.

    Ridiculously pretentious (likening himself to Jesus? Crazy narcissism).

    [12.53] poor mans plight- assumes that if someone is poor they are pitiful, they are less than, they are broken. Not very Christian or righteous or even correct, Jordan. Narcissistic.

    [13.46] self evident ramblings:

    [14.14] abstract convoluted language, plain truths disguised in pompous garb- this allows him to be evasive, a strong technique. If he wanted to say it clearly, he could, this means he is always able to take the higher ground

    ‘Dangerous leftist trying to pigeon hole him, misrepresenting him, that’s not what I mean, you’re nothing but an ideologue who wants to cage me, Jordan Peterson, the innocent prophet of truth, the crusader of knowledge’

    [15.45] Ideas tied in here:

    – chaos- female- are ungodly, this is like the bible blaming eve for the expulsion from the garden of eden

    – chaos is also the foreigner- racist undertones- the foreigners, not the flags of the nation, are chaotic, which is not as god intended

    – chaos, half of yin yang, is half of god and life itself. How can it not be as god intended?

    – traditional- Christian fundamentalism- deference to authority- fascism-

    – the masculine is as god intends- women being the weaker half of society, echoes of sexism..

    [16.07] The moment you take this into practical reality- ‘that’s not what I meant’, ‘it’s only symbolic’, ‘I don’t mean anything political’ (despite grouping all of natural history with authority and the nation against what is foreign and feminine)’

    [16.58] (JP) talking with a man, ‘and then it becomes physical’… horrible ridiculous quote that needs its own blog. Defenceless against women because he’s not allowed to threaten violence against them? Just stupid and ridiculous. Won’t respect a person/woman because she’s not violent enough? Just ridiculous.

    This seems very clear. But when interpreted he again denies that’s what he meant. ‘How could you so wilfully misrepresent me’ 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤦🏼‍♀️🤦🏼‍♀️

    Either DISENGENOUS or utterly lacking substance and talking out his arse. You decide.

    Maps of meanings

    First let’s start with this beautiful piece of art [examples of myths which violate Jordan’s interpretations, break down analysis, with the passing note that ‘He does not posit a cure for female unhappiness; the joy of chaos is obviously its own reward.’]


    MOM is not legit: critique using examples

    Some bothersome JP quotes:

    the Great Mother is a terrible force, in the absence of patriarchal protection’.

    Sounds like ‘MOM’my issues to me

    The hero cuts the world of the unpredictable — unexplored territory, signified by Tiamat — into its distinguishable elements; weaves a net of determinate meaning, capable of encompassing the vast unknown; embodies the divine “masculine” essence, which has as its most significant feature the capacity to transform chaos into order. The killing of an all-embracing monster, and the construction of the universe from its body parts, is symbolic (metaphorical) representation of the central, adaptive process of heroic encounter with the undifferentiated unknown, and the construction or generation of differentiated order as a consequence

    At the most basic level this is just illogical. The (masculine) hero defeats the feminine chaos to establish masculine order. This is inline with the title of 12 rules ‘antidote to chaos’ and JPs vehement anger against feminists and denial of transgender gender fluidity. How this could be read as anything less than a defence of patriarchy and of women as subservient/less than (where dominance hierarchy is predicated on competence and males are naturally on top) is beyond me.

    It is illogical though, so far as the symbol of Taoism is the yin yang where the masculine and feminine are in balance. This is not dependant on the masculine ruling over/dominating the feminine. That would add another layer to the 50/50 balance of energies and is imbalanced.

    (From above article): ‘Girard, like Peterson, finds an unconscious ur-narrative in a wide range of stories: the narrative of scapegoating as the origin of social order. But he at least has some anthropological evidence to support his ascription. The unconscious meaning is, he can say, embodied in the many blood-sacrifice rituals practiced alongside these narratives. Peterson could not follow Girard, however, because Girard’s reading makes the development of social order something deeply morally troubling. The birth of any culture depends on the sacrifice of an arbitrary victim. Peterson, of course, wants a clear-cut narrative of good versus evil that he can sell to flag-wagging patriots who want to know they’re on the right side of history.’

    Murky MOM– detailed breakdown

    The world as a forum for action is composed, essentially, of three constituent elements, which tend to manifest themselves in typical patterns of metaphoric representation. First is unexplored territory—the Great Mother, nature, creative and destructive, source and final resting place of all determinate things. Second is explored territory—the Great Father, culture, protective and tyrannical, cumulative ancestral wisdom. Third is the process that mediates between unexplored and explored territory—the Divine Son, the archetypal individual, creative exploratory Word, and vengeful adversary.”

    Interesting that the father is masculine and tyrannical—Peterson focuses heavily on denying the existence of tyranny when he denies patriarchy, and yet his hero is also masculine, and is considered to be the dominating force.

    (From article): ‘of the thousands of cultures in the world, Peterson has tapped into only one line of thinking, so his maps of meaning give a skewed picture of traditional thought’

    This is a common error which illustrates Peterson’s lack of true wisdom, his perspective is entirely and repeatedly focussed on white, western ethnocentric worldview.

    “Western morality and behavior, for example, are predicated on the assumption that every individual is sacred.”

    A laughable idea, when you take into account the devastating impact of the breakdown of the extended family, the oppression of POC and women, and the exploitative and divisive capitalism of which Peterson is a proponent.

    (From article): ‘Peterson adopts the pragmatist view that truth is what works, so that if myth works to provide people with a sense of meaning, then it is true… Science works with a correspondence theory of truth: a belief is true if it describes the world accurately.’

    In this sense, Peterson is as or more dubious, subjective and unscientific as the humanities departments he decries.

    Peterson’s analysis of genocidal horrors (p535) is perhaps accurate in its conclusion that this is rooted in a deep spiritual sickness, which he sees as requiring an individual hero who ‘rejects identification with the group as the ideal of life, preferring to follow the dictates of his conscience and his heart. His identification with meaning—and his refusal to sacrifice meaning for security—renders existence acceptable, despite its tragedy.”

    What I fail to understand is why that hero, why the ‘holy spirit’ is considered to be masculine. My perception would be that the ‘alpha and omega’ transcends such duality.

    If his line of thinking is summarised as

    1. totalitarianism is a spiritual problem, the result of neglecting the moral tradition rooted in Christianity.

    2. the best way to resolve this problem is spiritual, based on the “divinity” of the individual.

    3. the solution to totalitarianism is a combination of religion and individualism.

    …the conclusion that that moral sickness is the result of neglecting the moral tradition rooted in Christianity seems flimsy at best given the horrors perpetuated in the name of christianity, be it holy wars or colonisation or marital rape or pedophilia within the church. It would seem that religion itself does not equal true morality in alignment with the Holy Spirit, and Peterson fails to acknowledge that there are many other avenues to ‘live without sin’, ie beyond said spiritual sickness, though to an extent it is perhaps unavoidable as part of the human condition (the unavoidable suffering he often references).

    The above article contrasts Peterson as a “classic liberal” (an ideology that emphasizes personal liberty over equality and social welfare, in keeping with his assumption of the divinity of individuals) with responses to WW2 not grounded in mythology and religion, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which establishes rights and freedoms that apply to people “without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or another opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or another status”). The alternative value system of social democracy insists the state has an important role to play in enabling all individuals regardless of wealth to flourish as human beings. Peterson denies this, as evidenced by his objection to bill c16.

    “Peterson writes as if religious individualism is the best alternative to totalitarianism, but social democracy provides a morally superior way of challenging oppression. Peterson uses ideas about “dominance hierarchies” to downgrade equality as a social goal”.

    Peterson’s ideas are a mishmash of banal self-help, amateur philosophy, superfluous Christian mythology, evidence-free Jungian psychology, and toxic individualistic politics.  Seek enlightenment elsewhere.”


    I do infact agree with Peterson’s basic tenant that there is great wisdom to be drawn from myths. However his integrity breaks down when he attempts to focus on the bible to the exclusion of other myths, and use the myths to reinforce the white western patriachial world view and decry communism, losing much of the depth and richness found in stories, and distorting them into something untenable.

    A counterbalance to MOM would be a book such as ‘Women who run with the wolves’, which focusses on the feminine instinct as a source of safety and great wisdom. The author, also a skilled psychotherapist with leaning toward Jung, takes myths from all cultures and uses them to distill psychological wisdom and advice which unlike MOM, is multifaceted and unpoliticised.

    Is/ought response

    -On the death & destruction, JBP

    ‘In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, ’tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.’

    Just because lobsters are in a hierarchy doesn’t mean we ought to be

    Wikipedia explanation

    MOM PDF available here

    Video summary: zizek on JP


    [Begins at 35:28]

    ‘With all his pseudo-scientific references… he cannot talk about women and marriage without mentioning lobsters, apes, whatever, all of them. If you go to the end in this direction, mirroring relations of domination amongst animals, projecting them onto humans, then we humans are doomed, my god. Because humanity is unnatural. What is the idea of equality, freedom, and so on? This is human madness.’

    ‘I will quote here someone who is also my enemy, but he a little bit more honest. Steven pinkler (?) so-called rational optimist. I saw a debate between the two of them where Jordan Peterson went strongly in this direction ‘today there is so much violence and so on’ and Steven pinker said ‘sorry, your facts are totally wrong. If you look at it globally, with all the horror you hear of knife crimes and so on, the last decades are still much better than anytime in history’. So first, I doubt many of his facts. As to his theories, first, not in the sense that he uses it, but I think at the beginning he became famous for his brutal reaction to some transgender people’s ideas, he, she, it, whatever. I not agree with him, but he did draw attention to some problems. There I had not a sympathy but a half understanding. Then, catastrophe emerged when he fell into this stupid trap and started to use the term. Which is today the main term of the contemporary right ‘cultural marxism’. It would be interesting to deploy in front of you the entire background of this nation. It’s incredible. There is a whole entire background conspiracy theory narrative. It goes like this. After communist revolution direct political failure in 20s. Communists, Lenin, stalin, Whoever was there decided ‘we failed because we underestimated the strength of the Christian moral conviction of Western people. So, we should first undermine them morally’. Through the deture (?) of some Argentinian millionaire they financed the Frankfurt school, western Marxism which then culminates in today’s—what they call cultural marxism. Long story short, I am totally opposed to this narrative, I think today’s political correctness and so on, the failure of today’s is not that it is too fanatically Marxist, it’s precisely that it’s not Marxist. Basic questions of social power, economy and so on, it obfuscates these questions as cultural province

    ‘Then, the third moment, (Not a full critique, just mapping the topic) where I find him even more problematic, his attitude. He wants to be a wise guy, wisdom, giving advice to people, jungian approach and so on. Here I pull out my gun. I have such a distrust towards any form of wisdom. Wisdom is for me is by definition stupidity. You know what wisdom is to me? Wisdom is totally opportunistic. Simple example: in my country, if you do something risky and you succeed. I can immediately comment on your success by 5-10 proverbs. ‘Only those who risk, profit’, or whatever. This type of justifying risking. then let’s say you fail, we have a series of wonderful proverbs, i can say my most popular one, ‘you cannot urinate against the wind’ you know. This is, Wisdom- I think the greatest of our traditions, at least European: Plato, Ancient Greek philosophy or Christianity. They’re absolutely anti-wisdom. Jesus Christ is a madman, in the sense of socially disruptive. If nothing else, the traditional form of wisdom always thinks in circular terms. ‘What rises will fall. Everything returns to dust’. The notion of injustice is always the notion of somebody who should speak to his or her role gets caught in hubris, too much, but balance has to be restored. This is the very opposite of Christianity and Plato. The basic idea of Plato’s idealism- (in this sense I am a materialist idealist) is that you are going on in your stupid daily life, search for pleasures. Then you have a mega experience: Religious, philosophical, even erotic love. Your whole life is destabilised. How non organic, Dramatic, traumatic and brutal a thing, Passionate love is. You live your life, you Drink with friends, One night stand here there, then you fall in love. All the stability is destroyed. Everything is focussed on that’s what’s so great. You find this Christianity and other religions. Plato’s idealism, Plato’s basic reaction was, the way Plato describes, Socrates when he’s thinking. It’s really a Hysteric reaction. He just stood there Immobilised. I am for abstraction, for violent difference. I am absolutely against any holistic approach.’

    Transcript 2


    [3.45] talking about 10 hour mini series documentaries… Jordan Peterson, cultural Marxism ‘the idea that Frankfurt school and critical school… the alt right reading: they saw that Christianity too strong among ordinary people, and that you can only have a successful revolution if you first destroy the moral foundation of a society’.

    Moral degradation and revolutions has been part of humanity since the beginning.

    [4.17] ‘Here comes the paranoia. Bolsheviks Stalin and so in directly… financed Frankfurt school… to destroy the moral foundation of the west. And this culminates today in political correctness, transgender theory, and so on. again. It’s horrifying to read it… this conspiracy theory so crazy—This is a dangerous game to play—. They almost fascinate me. According to this theorist- This idea the Middle East is in conflict. Jews Against Palestinians. They claim this is a false conflict to seduce us. They claim In reality they are working together to destroy Western Europe. What’s their proof? They claim Muslim Immigrants are penetrating Western Europe. But This cannot happen by itself. This is not spontaneous. Incidentally Those leftists- claim Palestinians are today’s Jews/ the foreigners to be excluded, are wrong. More of less invisible, they were The secret masters. Refugees are all too visible… They claim they are too visible so there must be a secret master behind them (Jews of course). Muslim Jewish plot to destroy our civilisation….. What happened in the last 10-15 years. These conspiracy theorists were always here. What is sad… was before constrained to the dirty talk…—now it’s becoming part of our public space.’

    [14:00] (regarding truth): ‘The correct horizon/ conceptual field from which we interpret data is not just our subjective choice, it’s part of the object itself. (Very Hegelian notion)—How we read facts, it’s not just our subjectivity, it’s prescribed into the object itself.’

    History is the collection of data into a cohesive story.

    [13.53] ‘Anti-semitism and racism… is wrong apriori formally absolutely. It’s not a question of ‘okay maybe hitler was a little bit right but he exaggerates’, was absolutely wrong. In what sense? He was wrong because they way he used facts was in order to sustain a general lie about society. Didactical notion of truth. You can use correct data to serve a lie… if you

    Marxism: there are some truths to which we have access only through an existential engagement.

    The link:

    1min introduction

    2 minutes of non-problematic psychological discussion

    [3.07] ‘A penguin is neither/both a fish or a bird. This blows a category structure’.

    YES, because this is the nature of reality. Part order, part mess. Paradox is part of reality.

    [3.11] ‘The post modernists like derida claimed that categories were primarily tools of power and oppression’…. ‘Who the categories marginalise, and what the consequences of this is. This gets ties into Marxist identity politics- the equivalent of the oppressed working class… the resurgence of Marxism as an ideological doctrine.’

    He takes solid psychological theory and tries to make this irrational leap to tie in philosophy and politics- into his Marxism doctrine (at around 5 minutes), it’s built on a reasonable premise (left brain right brain) but this falls apart logically when you closely examine the philosophical extensions (refer blogs critiquing the problems with his interpretation of Marxism)

    [4.19] ‘categories exclude. If you include the excluded, you blow the categorical structure… the category structure has been violated’

    This would suggest the categories do not reflect reality.

    [5.46] ‘Binary categories maintain order. If you violate them to include those who were excluded… upswelling of chaos’

    Statistically, You can have stable categories without them being binary. Humans exist along a continuum.

    We require a more complex societal structure which is not reliant on ‘dominant’ vs ‘other’. (Eg white vs POC). A heirarchy by its very nature requires more than 2 levels. This is contradictory.

    [7.20] ‘there is only male and female. There’s nothing more. Where does this come from?’

    Sex is the biological reality (which can at times be debated anyway, such as a ‘male’ normative brain in a biological female). Gender is the construct. THEY DON’T GET THE FUNDAMENTAL DEFINITIONS.

    [8.15] ‘identity unmoored from the objective then it’s just subjective and can be anything’.

    Extreme masculine to want everything to be objectively defined and in a way which maintains the status quo- white male dominant.

    Some things need to be subjective, that is balance. According to yin yang, it would be half.

    [8.51] ‘a philosophical assault on the concept of gender itself’.

    Yes. Because our rigid notions of gender are deeply problematic and are in part socially constructed beyond the realities of the physical- and need to also encompass the contradictions of the physical, such as male brain in female, males who are more sensitive, females who are stronger, etc. (refer to bell curve). Other societies manage to have more flexible gender constructs without collapsing in on themselves. It is fear mongering to say this is a risk to the very structure of society. No, it is only a risk to the white male ego and to the status quo- that is, a risk to Peterson himself. It is not a risk to all those who would benefit from it, males and females alike both negatively affected by toxic masculinity, for example.

    [8.53] regarding dr Nicolas mats claim that the science over 4 decades, No biological differences between men and women- ‘a remarkable claim’

    [9.49] ‘the dissolution of identity into unbelievable chaos’

    toxic Masculinity so fragile

    [10.01] German philosopher, our recognition of the biological sex of animals is nothing more than an artificial imposition of a arbitrary ideological construct… ‘the evolutionary biologists are next in the sights of the social justice warriors’


    [11.22] ‘Inclusion of a transwoman into the category destabilises the definition of a woman. What should be done about that?’

    Expand the definition.

    [11.49] ‘Structural Basis of civilisation itself is the nuclear family… under assault… Christian fundamentalists picked this up.. dissolution of structures destabilises the nuclear family. Unclear consequences. Children raised in intact families with two biological parents do far better’

    Intact family doesn’t have to mean heteronormative. Current structures of gender are deeply problematic and lead to the breakdown of stable relationships. The existing structures do not work and have caused generations of trauma.

    [12.50] ‘Its in the interests of those people… If you destabilise a culture enough, it will become rapidly intolerant, and then the first thing that happens is those that are identifiably different become targets of an intolerant culture’

    Our culture is already intolerant. It is deeply dysfunctional. The male dominance causes enough problems that it has caused the desire for changes. And the minorities fight because they have historically been experiencing discrimination as targets. This structure is not inherently stable.

    [13.10] ‘if [the lgbt community] want to request inclusion, they have to figure out how that can be done in such a way that it doesn’t destabilise the entire structure’

    He’s so afraid of the unknown. By stability he means the status quo of masculine dominant. If we established that flipping the heirarchy was possible and would be more stable with females dominant. What would he say then?

    [14.06] ‘an act of politeness on your part [to be easily identifiable as a woman]’

    This is problematic when to be ‘a woman’ relies on being pretty and submissive. This excludes the reality of many, if not most, of the women already in that category, and is an artificial imposition. When so many of the women speak up saying the same thing, it challenges the notion of this being an absolute, objective, biological reality.

    [15.04] ‘the manner in which that inner drive [to be female] manifests itself is part of a social negotiation’

    This is the problematic aspect going unaddressed: the definition of male is so strict as to be that if a male wants to be soft and pretty, he needs to identity as female to be allowed to do so. This rigid definition of gender may be the true underlying issue for the transgender community: to instead battle for males to be allowed to inhabit the traits designated only for females (touch, affection, dresses, makeup, emotionality, close relationships)

    [15.12] (interviewer) ‘that is my argument for choosing a definition of women which includes me.. referring to me as a male would create more confusion’.

    ‘Your mere existence is a threat to categorical order, your duty as a consequence despite the potential violation of your own sense of self would be to deny your inner impulses and confirm (not saying you should, you could make a case)—the social obligation of someone that doesn’t fit into a fundamental category would be to fit into a category, because it’s so threatening not to—…although often people who don’t fit in are necessary’.

    Threatening to whom??? The white heteronormative male?

    [17.05] (interviewer) ‘How useful is a definition of a woman? … describes the vast majority of real world cases.. not conflicting to consider a different definition of woman without threatening categories..’

    Raising the larger question of responsibility to be a certain gender: what does it mean to be female?

    [17.48] if you’re born a man and wish to be treated as a woman, what are the minimal obligations you have to undertake in order to be granted this privilege… don’t consider it respect to use proper pronouns, pronouns are casual… what are the responsibilities to be given that privilege?…

    Is it a casual thing or is it a privilege??

    ‘Don’t make it anymore awkward for anyone to interact with you than it needs to be. Behave nicely once you’re welcomed into the house… Behave nicely when welcomed into the category, comply by the rules and not blow up the category’.

    The left recognises that the current boundaries of the category are deeply problematic and might be *gasp* better off blown up and then reestablished. Sometimes you need to level the building and clear the block to start again with a better foundation. Life-death-life cycle, JP is terrified of the skeleton woman (refer to Clarissa pinkola estes).

    [21.05] ‘Have to be discriminating or you’ll do anything all of the time…. Chimpanzees are promiscuous. Males chase away subordinate males. Nothing to do with female preference… human females are sexually choosy… on average every female produces 2 offspring to every male producing one… female sexual selectivity’

    This could also be males unwillingness or unsuitability to procreate or be fathers!

    Incredible assumptions based more on his personal bias more than on any objective evidence.

    [22.20] ‘Females tend to choose for those above or across in dominance hierarchy- health, appearance, productivity manifested as status… minority are found sexually attractive, majority not.’

    This is an assumption based on supposed norms and disregards other factors psychologically proven to be important such as familiarity

    [22.47] ‘Feminists want the right to absolute sexual choice- this is discrimination based on race, religion, age, health, attractiveness… Discrimination governs sexual choice. Eradicate justification for discrimination- same as the right to freedom of association- blow out sexual choice’

    This is very extremist. Argument that if you can’t take something to the extreme conclusion without consequence that it is not correct in the moderate form.

    [23.37] ‘considering you as a sexual partner is going to be distressing. Is that acceptable? Why?’

    Because anyone not without the majority will cause the same!! An older woman, a disabled person, a black person in a white conservative family.

    Our right to existence and self determination is not governed by the preferences of the heteronormative male viewer. A man might want to date me but be made uncomfortable by my choice to grow armpit hair. That has no bearing on whether it is right or wrong for me to do so.

    Note: This question is answered in a different context to the one that I believe JP was asking it. I believe he was asking ‘is it ok that you exist within the social context when you are making people uncomfortable’, whereas the question she answered was more simplified ‘do they have a right to be uncomfortable’

    [24.28] ‘Why are we allowed to discriminate sexually?… not obvious why it’s okay to discriminate sexually’. References brave new world, ‘moral obligation to not discriminate… everyone belongs to everyone else. thats the final limit’

    Because our bodies are ours and we have the right to consent! Our body is not a common resource. This relates to the idea of a ‘sexual marketplace’, capitalism taken to the extreme when the individuals body become a commodity. Ironically (given JPS ideological proclivities), this idea of the common good superseding individual freedom is quite communist.

    [24.55] (Interviewer) ‘I believe in equality and lack of discrimination, equal treatment under the law.’

    Interesting this is not considered problematic to JP given his opposition to the bill designed to protect transpeople from abuse under the law.

    [26.25] ‘Free market is interesting.. Privilege to reject others…. Horror on either side.. if we eliminate sexual choice… We have to allow ourselves be a sexual target of whomever whenever… not one that one would rapidly accept.. assault on an individual’s agency. Maintain the right to discriminate. Putting these boundaries is very tricky..’

    JP presents this like it would an appalling prospect- this is the reality of women! This also has homophobic undertones.

    In a real world practical sense most people most of the time do not find these boundaries tricky.

    [27.07] ‘Discrimination has gone too far… men should be allowed to hang around men if they want to… that right should be necessary for the proper development of masculinity and femininity’

    He presents this as if they’re aren’t in a reasonable sense. JP is arguing for the right to men’s clubs. No one is stopping men hanging with men. The problem is when this is discriminating against a minority group or maintaining a dominance heirarchy, which he thinks needs to be protected. If it falls apart when it is not institutionally protected, then how valid is it as an actual heirarhy? Should it not automatically reassert itself if it is a natural order?

    [27.33] ‘another horrible thing… homosexual men who get married are still promiscuous- Men tend to not say no to sexual activitity… responsibility to be part of the game, have to follow the rules’

    This is a tenant of toxic masculinity which results in discrimination against men who are raped and is not true for a large portion of men.

    He says there is literature, where is the data on this? What is the comparison for males in heterosexual marriages and their promiscuity! It is likely comparable. This seems more of an argument against men being monogamous than it is an argument against homosexual marriage per se.

    Being highly intelligent—which JP undoubtably is—is not the same as being an intellectual, which is dependant on a solid, rational and academically agreed upon, cohesive theoretical framework.

    This is Part 2 of Jordan Peterson: An overview originally published May 27.

    When he says enforced monogamy, JP isn’t necessarily referring to the waifus advocated by incels (see below). More, enforced by societal norms that encourage lifetime pair bonding (such as no sex before marriage) and societal norms which support monogamy and protect or mandate against its demise (such as legally preventing divorce), or as he put it ‘social convention favoring stable pair bonding’ (shaming single women but not single men, and allowing rape during marriage in the 1980s are some conventions he might be otherwise referencing

    He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

    This seems to endorse the ‘feminist’ idea that marriage is an institution that is designed to control the sexuality of women.

    ‘So I don’t know who these people think marriages are oppressing. I read Betty Friedan’s book because I was very curious about it, and it’s so whiny, it’s just enough to drive a modern person mad to listen to these suburban housewives from the late ’50s ensconced in their comfortable secure lives complaining about the fact that they’re bored because they don’t have enough opportunity. It’s like, Jesus get a hobby. For Christ’s sake, you — you — ” –JP

    He doesn’t think divorce laws should have been liberalized in the 1960s. He states relationships are harder to find now because tinder and casual sex made it easier- which is probably true, and in this sense the feminist liberation of having the contraceptive pill functioned to provide women ‘freedom from’ unhappy coupling but perhaps reduced their ‘freedom for’ being valued as a partner more so than a disposable sexual commodity. (The liberation in sexual attitude which were there commodified as porn now mass consumed with high levels of violence and degradation in order to sell, and with younger and younger exposure to more advanced sex acts and expectations on young girls for anal and fully removing pubic hair (link*)

    That said,

    Pretty ironic to argue against a sexual heirachy or to fight for sexual marxism.

    A Women’s Place…?

    As with racial discrimination, JP dismisses and minimises the cultural factors surrounding the pay gap by blaming it on women’s personalities and them not doing dangerous jobs. He says that in Scandinavia the ratio of nurses is high nurses 20:1, and male engineers 20:1 and claims these are ineradicable traits, as women are more agreeable (medical and nursing they excel, women are caregivers). He is thus implying that this is biological and not nurtured by socialisation.

    A Canadian Study
    cited by the economist found that women shied away from “masculine” sounding jobs because they feared they wouldn’t belong, not because of the job itself, to explain the continued disparity, likewise toxic masculinity is a barrier to men taking caring, reception, and other traditionally women’s which have lower pay. JP’s approach is to not listen to what women are actually saying about their experience, and to blame, dismiss and minimise their experience.

    Despite it forming a massive portion of modern psychological thought, he does not address socialisation as an issue, when it is raised he dismisses that it is possible or more importantly, desirable to change. In the below clip he avoids directly addressing the question about the ways women are disadvantaged, reducing it only to them bearing children, then listing the fact that men die younger, and concluding with: ‘yeah both genders have it bad but to reduce that to a consequence of the social structure, it’s like ‘c’mon, really?”

    Yes Jordan, really.

    ‘Of course you’re oppressed… but to think of that as the consequnce if unjust social structure is just moronic’.

    No Jordan… that’s literally the definition of oppressed: ‘subject to harsh and authoritarian treatment’; to burden with cruel or unjust impositions or restraints; subject to a burdensome or harsh exercise of authority or power’.

    He concludes that as the women are able to attend an intellectual lecture in warmth on a Saturday morning that ‘there’s no gratitude for what our society is capable of doing‘. This is a healthy message ‘be grateful’ concealing a deeper belief ‘men built this amazing world and did the dangerous work, it is only your essential biological nature limiting you, be thankful for what we have bestowed on you—and stop complaining’.

    When Jordan focusses on the fact that historically male jobs are more dangerous, this is not only referring to a reality which has become irrelevant since the advent of machine automation, but also totally dismissed the reality that

    ‘Professions that are dominated by women, like nursing, child care, cleaning or teaching tend to be lower paid. And professions that are dominated by men, such as banking, mining, or engineering tend to attract higher salaries. A key contributor to this problem is work that has traditionally been considered the responsibility of women, is work that was historically unpaid and therefore remains undervalued.’

    The reality of the situation is that the work women do is so fundamental, crucial, dangerous (delivery is life threatening) and labour intensive (parenting is 24/7) that our society simply cannot afford to pay them. The perpetuation and rise of capitalism required some hectic mind fuckery ‘you were born to raise children’, ‘it’s what you want to do’, to somehow imply that they should be doing that for free, while male work (going out and building things, as Jordan likes to refer to) was monetised as an external economy, renting labour to companies (capital) as opposed to building a healthy and functional state (social).


    JP states that the rise of neuroticism and overrepresentation of depression and anxiety in woman, and alcoholism and drug abuse in men is due to biological difference, and again fails to address socialisation.

    He again mixes this problematic logic with relatively benign but interesting observations:

    1. Men are bigger but women attack husbands physically more in marriage- why? women know they won’t actually harm their husband. But if he hits her he will. [A salient observation for MRA’s about power imbalance and deaths]

    2. The world is more dangerous to women, physically vulnerable, sexually vulnerable (the cost of sex is higher for them) [problematic when used to justify existing toxic structures or cultural practices]

    3. Women’s nervous systems are adapted to mother-infant dyad. Women are not the same person after puberty, have to express the vulnerability of the infant and care for it, breastfeeding for 9 months. Price that women pay for infant intimacy, and that temperament doesn’t work well with adult men, especially in a business environment.

    He says:

    Agreeable people are compassionate and polite. Disagreeable people are tough minded, competitive, blunt. Predatory aggression, dominance behaviour, want to compete and win. Exploitation: middle age women who are hyper conscientious and agreeable do disproportionate amount labour for corporations. They do everything, don’t take credit for it, and don’t complain. Wired to be exploited by infant, and agreeable to keep peace for infants, but they don’t know what they want.

    When he says women are more agreeable and if they fix that, the problem will go away, not only is he massively generalising, he is victim blaming and dismisses the wide array of structural and barriers and cultural factors at play—which he is also reinforcing.

    Regarding agreeableness: women in the workplace are criticised for apologizing too often, speaking in self-deprecating terms, or appearing too cautious. But men do the same thing, it’s received in a completely different way. For example, a woman using vocal fry in her speech is often viewed as being unintelligent or unsure. When a man does it, however, it’s considered perfectly normal.

    On the flip side, research shows that while men in leadership positions are often viewed as “assertive,” women with similar traits are “bitchy” or “shrill” or unlikeable, (see satirical Comic on how to appear ‘non-threatening’)

    JP denies the importance of bias and explicitly dismissed implicit bias (link).

    “Also known as implicit social cognition, implicit bias refers to the attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner.  These biases, which encompass both favorable and unfavorable assessments, are activated involuntarily and without an individual’s awareness or intentional control.  Residing deep in the subconscious, these biases are different from known biases that individuals may choose to conceal for the purposes of social and/or political correctness.  Rather, implicit biases are not accessible through introspection.” –Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity

    Implicit biases are the reason corrective hiring actions are required. Access is not equal due to discrimination. This is not due to any isolated ‘corruption’ or conspiracy, but more a generalised bias throughout all of society that is not solely based on objective fact. For example,

    • a child on a video-clip playing with a jack-in-the-box. It popped up, the child was startled and jumped backward. When people were asked, what’s the child feeling, those who were given a female label said, “she’s afraid.” But the ones given a male label said, “he’s angry.”

    • children with male names were more likely to be rated as strong, intelligent, and active; those with female names were more likely to be rated as little, soft, and so forth;

    • When parents were asked to predict their child’s ability to climb a slide, they consistently underrated the girls ability, even though there was no difference, both sexes babies performed the same.

    • University professors given a great resume and an average resume labelled male or female:

    1. The male was rated as having higher research productivity. (Females face different expectations for the same reward).

    2. The same list of courses was seen as good teaching experience when the name was male, and less good teaching experience when the name was female.

    3. 70% said yes to hire the male, 45% for the female.

    4. If the decision were made by majority rule, the male would get hired and the female would not.

    5. Reservations such as ‘”This person looks very strong, but before I agree to give her tenure I would need to know, was this her own work or the work of her adviser?” were expressed four times more often when the name was female than when the name was male.

    6. Scientists’ perception of the quality of a candidate will influence the likelihood that the candidate will get a fellowship, a job, resources, or a promotion.

    A pattern of biased evaluation therefore will occur even in people who are absolutely committed to gender equity.

    Peterson is against this equality of outcomes but can’t recognise it is one of our only available avenues to create social change and begin to dismantle implicit bias. JP says ‘if you want to understand someone’s motivations, look to the consequences‘. When he reduces the pay gap to women’s agreeableness, Peterson is reinforcing existing ideas which underlie the social and cultural barriers to equality of access and opportunity, and when he oppose equal hiring, he is preventing change. The end result is men remaining dominant, retaining the facade of white males being more ‘competent’, unchanged role expectations, including toxic masculinity, and retaining the status quo.

    Besides. Like most other sex differences (aside from ovaries and testes), the overlap on sex differences between the bell curves on agreeableness is so vast as to render the differences negligible to all but the minority. This makes it far more likely that it is not increased agreeableness that holds women back in the workplace, but the cultural expectation of agreeableness, and other factors (JP quoted analysis which apparently found 26 but has not provided a link to one which actually includes agreeableness).

    Even with the research on male/female brain differences, which already incorporate the impact of socialisation into the way the brain’s developed, the percentage of individuals under the same bell curve where any given male could score within the females range is when it comes to research on sex differences 76+% of people overlap, and differences are small

    JP claims sexual harassment won’t stop because we don’t know what the rules are working with women. But at the same time claims the rules are too restrictive and that they’re rapidly spreading.

    He shames women for wearing makeup, saying they shouldn’t be simulating arousal in the workplace if they don’t want to be harrassed. Yet this ignores the cultural mandates set in place (mainly by male executives) which shame and punish those who don’t wear heels and make up (as much as it is often even part of company policy), ignores the fact most women don’t wear bright red blush and lipstick, and that men also emphasise attractiveness with padded shoulders or beards. In that competitive environment, To not do so would (and does) disadvantage women. Besides, generally speaking, Women can choose to look attractive for one person, that doesn’t make everyone entitled to them. He then emphasises that successful women in law firms are very attractive: simultaneously blaming women and ignoring cultural context.

    In ‘women at 30’ JP states women in a high powered job wake up and realise they want to have a relationship and prioritise family; uses this as a justification for the lack of success for females without addressing the double standard that men aren’t expected to give up work. EG paid maternity and laws to allow womens careers to continue are designed to prevent the year of pregnancy stopping their fulfilling their aspirations; men should have equal paternity leave and in many places do, as fought for by the feminists JP holds such disdain for.

    Age of first promotion tends to be at age of first child, and managers are reluctant to promote women who are starting families, or are likely to do so soon, but not fathers. ‘In Sweden, which increased the parental leave earmarked for fathers from two months to three in 2016, one study estimated that every month of leave a father took boosted his partner’s salary four years later by 7%.’ Though Australian men ask for flexible working less often than women they are much more likely to be rejected. … ‘Government policies also play a role in men’s and women’s decisions about how to combine parenthood and jobs. They do more than raise or lower the cost of working for women. They shape men’s and women’s expectations for their own and each others’ careers—and companies’ decisions about whom to hire and promote.’ – The economist

    ‘Women have to take primary responsibility for having infants at least, then also for caring for them. They’re structured differently than men for biological necessity. Women know what they have to do. (Men have to figure out what they have to do. And if they have nothing worth living for, then they stay Peter Pan.).’

    Presumably, JP thinks the uneven division of child raising and household labour is justified as he labels this a women’s responsibility, but fails to see how this could tie in with the fact women do not succeed as men do in the work place. He also fails to see that parenthood is a choice for women as much as for men deciding if they will have children—and that women have as much work to do finding meaning purpose and identity as men, that the role of a father should be as emotionally and physically large as that of a mother (AKA absent fathers working demanding jobs are not good for children), AND that women can express for men to bottle feed.

    Comic about workplace expectations .

    This makes more sense in light of his criticisms of the birth control pill because women would likely be happier if they “allow themselves to be transformed by nature into mothers,” and because allowing women to choose anything other than motherly transformation leads to declining birth rates “in the West” that might “do us all in.” He says it was the pill which caused social change and not feminists; I would be interested to know his thoughts on devilish feminists gaining women the right to vote (or how the pill achieved that!).

    What is a relationship for?

    Of relationships, he says: ‘What you do in a relationship that works is that you actually fall in love with what they could be… so you’re bringing your flaws together, and that’s going to produce a lot of friction, and you are going to have to engage in a lot of dialogue before you reach that level of perfection that you originally had in the other person’s eyes. But maybe you can do it. And then you would live happily ever after.”

    Then he says: Relationships are not for happiness.

    JP believes children are what give us meaning past 45 into old age. Therefore women bearing children is necessary and a great service to males, and yet his focus is on the sacrifice males make by working, not the sacrifice women make by giving up their jobs, independence and bodies.

    Rejecting people because they were too nice, someone biting you psychologically is what keeps a relationship linked together; looking for someone you have to contend with who is going to judge you harshly for your limitations, this will make you angry and resentful, and you’ll take your revenge and all of this…’

    The rhetoric is problematic as it can be used to justify abuse and reinforces MGTOW & incel ideology about ‘nice guys’ (see incel discussion below):


    Do we need feminism?

    JP is vocally anti feminist; he justifies this by pointing to extremists but it isn’t just the extremists he takes issue with. He responded to Justin Trudeau (and his centrist-right government) supporting feminists as ‘inspiring and motivating’ and labelled this attitude ‘a murderous equity doctrine’. As the Canadian prime minister is not what he would call a ‘radical feminist who wants to dominate men’, presumably (as with the transgender pronouns) there is actually a deeper, unnamed objection at play. His stance is also reactionary and as such, is as unbalanced as that which he criticises.

    The essence of feminism being about not objectifying or commodifying women, not reducing them to inferior baby makers, allowing women and men freedom to do what the opposite sex do (when they are equally competent) to the extent of supporting them in full development from birth, giving them bodily autonomy and choice (aka not enforcing monogamy, and the choice to not bear children, which is supposedly their responsibility). JP reduces his objection to this to ‘lack of science’ (‘they have lost that argument’), and labels such as identity politics.

    Women fighting for rights such as that to vote, to divorce, to not be discriminated or sexually harassed in the workplace, to have safe access to abortion, to have paid maternity leave, and to not be murdered by their partners or incels due to toxic masculinity (aka the women’s rights movement, composed of ‘feminists’) are no different to the civil rights movement. It is not identity politics as it seeks to place women as the same as men and seeks to also liberate men from toxic masculinity. In much the same way slave owners worked against civil rights by justifying blacks as different, JP emphasises men and women are different when he says the pay gap is due to how women are and denies structural discrimination.

    Peterson claims women supporting Islamic women have ‘an unconscious wish for brutal male domination’, given his ideology is based around the dominance of males and an aggressive competitive society; given his ideas of men and dominance hierachies, this is likely a pure projection.

    When female journalists interview him (such as Cathy Newman) they receive a torrent of violent and misogynist backlash ‘cunt, bitch, dumb blonde’. The undertow his ideas feeds into are violent, misogynistic and problematic beliefs, thus many people with those beliefs follow him and he is a cult for young white men, not women, not mixed race people.

    ‘The idea that women were suppressed throughout history is an appalling theory’. This is in essence the same as denying the holocaust and dismisses their voices and experience; it is the patriachial notion that he knows better than they do what they truly want, need and feel. Women were suppressed: not allowed to vote, but also raped, beaten, sold, traded—as the physically weaker sex, by men who were not capable of valuing them. This still occurs around the world. It is victim blaming to say that women who are traded as sex slaves have themselves to blame due to their inherent weakness that they deserve to be exploited. Either that or he says they were suppressed because that’s where they belong. There is an inherent lack of responsibility attributed to those who perpetrate these and other acts. His intellectualisations provide justification for those who in positions to make societal change to avoid responsibility. This is divisionary and validates men at the expense of all others.

    Women don’t understand that men… at least to the extent that they’re uncorrupted and not bitter about being rejected, are doing everything they can to kneel before the eternal image of the feminine… and try to make themselves worthy’. (See toxic masculinity discussion about worthiness below)

    That’s the chivalry story. Out of chaos emerges the feminine. Novelty: threat and promise, hope and anxiety. I don’t know if women have any idea how paralysing they are, especially to young men. Terrified of women, terrified of being rejected. Terror in proportion to attraction to the woman’.

    (MRAs mustn’t have been listening blaming this age old nervousness on feminism)

    They don’t see her as an individual, they see her as the manifestation of a judgemental ideal. In establishing a relationship… this requires a sacrifice because you never can have an ideal woman.’

    In some ways, perhaps that is true.

    Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.’ –JP

    No. The men will just be violent against that one woman. Men kill women when they try to leave abusive relationships.

    This is victim blaming. This is why women needed feminism to be free and able to leave abusive relationships, and to change the masculinity constructs that lead to men being violent, when as JP said (above), the man won’t be harmed, but the women can die.

    It is quite ironic when elected as a figurehead and defender of such as the incel community (see below) who yet miss this explicit message (‘take responsibility’), instead focussing on the implicit blame (‘women did this to you’).

    Maybe if men were taking a more ‘feminist’ approach: 1) taking equal share of housework and parenting 2) not objectifying and discriminating against women and 3) sexually satisfying women, moving away from phallocentric sex, or in the very least acknowledging that, for example, women can ejaculate, maybe the ‘feminist harpies’ wouldn’t be so upset. Those are things that would result in less incels, as a result of a change in culture. It’s admirable to encourage men to be better, but it’s not going to create meaningful change with the same patriarchal underlying values and beliefs.

    Toxic masculinity says:

    1. Women need to be conquered. They are prey. This relies on dominating them, there is an element of force and violence. This is the opposite of consent and forms a foundation for rape culture.

    2. Men are valuable only if they can achieve this.

    This leads to a sense of entitlement aka if I do A, I deserve B, with B being female subservience (meeting all emotional and physical needs without autonomy or objection—disregarding the reality that no one is entitled to someone else’s time, effort, body or mind).

    These goals are male centric, encourage against supporting women (the culture doesn’t value males unconditionally supporting females: taken to the nth with MGTOW culture maintaining that woman are manipulative and exploitative and that those who trust and love women are ‘cucks’ and ‘betas’) and result in them being upset by challenge from females (while expecting it from males).

    Someone who doesn’t do this, will have issue with ‘social justice warriors’ where:—

    Jordan Peterson’s emphasis on heirachy and dominance, winners and losers, endorsing incels being angry and feeling like losers due to lack of sex as justified, with needing to get themselves together *in order to be in a relationship* reinforces this. This is amplified with statements such as ‘agreeable women don’t know what they want’ (above). And in this way his advice is nothing empowering.

    ‘Elliot Rodger,” the gunman who opened fire on students at the University of California, Santa Barbara in 2014, killing six. In a video posted before his attack, Mr. Rodger called his planned attack “retribution” for the women who rejected him and for “all you men for living a better life than me.”one day incels will realize their true strength and numbers, and will overthrow this oppressive feminist system. Start envisioning a world where WOMEN FEAR YOU.”’-media

    ‘Alek Minassian, the 25-year-old suspected of driving the van that plowed into pedestrians in Toronto’s Monday, killing 10 and hospitalising 14, predominantly women posted, “The Incel Rebellion has already begun! We will overthrow all the Chads and Stacys. All hail the Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger!’ –Media

    Before this, Marc Lépine’s slaughter of 14 female engineering students at Université de Montréal’s École Polytechnique in 1989—was driven by a misogynistic rage: Lépine ordered men out of a classroom, shouted “You’re all a bunch of feminists, and I hate feminists!,” then opened fire with a semi-automatic rifle he later turned on himself. (And Peterson wonders why the women aren’t studying engineering).

    Defining INCEL

    Peterson reiterates and legitimises the ‘Chad and stacy’ rhetoric of the incels:

    ‘the “eternal feminine” as “the crushing force of sexual selection”…‘Most men do not meet female human standards . . . It is Woman as Nature who looks at half of all men and says, ‘No!’ ’ -12 rules.

    in terms of increasing sexual inequity in favour of alpha men… sexual access for males is a Pareto distribution pheneomena where a small proportion of a males get most of the invitations… the thing that is a bulwark for that is monogamy… recipe for resentment and aggression‘ –video

    He fails to give adequate weight to unrealistic beauty standards and sexual expectations, and issues of power and control which underly the issues facing the young men perpetrating the these hate crimes.

    ‘For the record most of these men don’t want a relationship with a real person. Women aren’t that fucking complicated, and if you just act like a human being with compassion many are willing to accept your shortcomings. They do not want real women, they want fuck dolls they can humiliate so they feel better about themselves. Because what’s going to happen after the 4 second of sex is they will feel even less like men and that would be her fault too‘. -Facebook commenter

    Violence against sex dolls

    ‘The appeal, then, of sex robots, is that while they look like a pornified ideal of women, they are not like real human women in a very key way. They have no voice. They don’t say no, they don’t have their their own sexuality, they don’t have their own tastes and sexual proclivities..’

    (This is reflected by manosphere “traditional marriage” advocates, who argue that you should aim to marry a very young woman as she’s likely to be easier to control).

    ‘The idealisation of the woman who never says no; the normalisation of sexual aggression; the eroticisation of non-consent – this is the reality of sex robots and this is what lies behind the attack on Samantha’.

    This is reflected in common manosphere use of the word ‘femoids’ reflecting the dehumanising idea that women are robotic or sub-human.

    While doing their research in 1998, Dr. Burgess said they were “startled” by the number of men who described their ideal relationship based on what kind of female body they wanted. Buying into the idea that masculinity is defined by a tally of sexual conquests, they blamed women–who they had trouble seeing as fully human–for not giving them what they felt was their due.

    Much of the incel culture initially solidified on 4chan which had an extreme emphasis on liberty ‘in which isolated man-boys asserted their right to do or say anything no matter someone else’s feelings. This meant generally posting pornography, swastikas, racial slurs, and content that reveled in harm to other people’…’celebrated failure — that from the very beginning encouraged anyone who posted to “become an hero” (their term for killing themselves, and sometimes others in the bargain)’, and led to anonymous who don the Guy Fawkes mask, Gamergate in 2014 (someone’s ex cheated on him-> stemmed into Gamergaters saying that “SJWs” were promoting gender equality in video games-> Yiannopoulos arguing against feminism-‘men they can and should walk away from the female sex en masse’).

    The meme Pepe was popularised by 4chan and later used as a symbol by alt-right & white supremacy groups ; Jordan seems less concerned with this association—

    than his analysis of the princess and the frog, which though psychologically apt, ‘maybe turns into the thing of the highest value- marriage- profound immaturity of our cultures waiting around to find the perfect person for them- the perfection is something you build within a relationship- swear that you won’t run from each other- and engage in a process of mutual transformation as a consequence of telling the truth‘, fails to grasp that Pepe is the frog archetype hijacked- it no longer is a frog who is wise and grows but instead only does what ‘feels good man’. (JP acknowledges this briefly in passing ‘underground comic horror associated with it that I find distasteful‘ but again fails to address it in any meaningful way).

    (This video defines the right as ‘the forces of order people who create the norm’ and states they are being marginalised, which the frog symbolises- the supplement then minimalises the political use of these images and dismisses its significance citing benign uses elwsewhete- gaslighting ‘SJW’s that it was only their projection— as if there was no inherent meaning to Pepe at all- ‘he is everything and nothing at the same time’.)

    The solution happens inside the chaos. If it’s a very complex problem you have to go far into chaos to find the solution. But there’s always the risk of losing yourself. The thing about dragons- about confronting things that terrify you- is that they can actually eat you.’ -JP

    This acute psychological wisdom is lost on himself when he then labels the left chaos ‘LGBTQ etc’ as ‘endless multiplication of identities’, failing to grasp his own wisdom that you need to go into it to find the answer, not to reject the feminine; instead of surrendering, trying to control via ‘masculine’ judgement and order. By claiming the multiplication is indefinite- this shows a lack of trust in the feminine, to go into ‘the belly of the whale’.

    JP claims ‘Logos is the most important part of western civilisation’ where logos is the principle of divine reason and creative order; (in Jungian psychology) the principle of reason and judgement, associated with the animus. He fails to grasp this imbalance is the problem SJW’s seek to redress; imbalance like that is not sustainable healthy. Yin and yang as masculine and feminine exist together in equal Balance and harmony, one feeds into the other, healthy humans have both and merely supplement each other as they cycle through both together as a team, of equals. One maybe stronger in the feminine reflection and one may be stronger in the masculine action but both energies are equally valid, important and necessary for human society. The refusal to accept this and surrender full power and control is to be stuck in the developmental phase of the teenage years—which is likely why late teen boys and adult males who have failed to make the transition into manhood resonate so strongly with his message—and it is externalisation, projection. Of blame which prevents this maturation. In this sense, whether he intends it or not, jordan himself is functioning as the archetype devouring mother of which he is so critical, by failing to speak these truths which would alienate his devout followers (it is also a marker of teen maturity to look for a hero to follow rather than follow your internal guidance).

    Tweets animus

    Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) believe that female oppression is a myth and that it’s actually males who are oppressed.

    This was explored in s04e03 of Kimmy Schmidt, hyperbole that reveals the truth.

    “That’s whose fault it is! Society used to make sense! Nuclear families, straight marriages, white quarterbacks. That’s the world the Reverend was trying to get back to. The bunker was a return to traditional values.”

    -MRA’s on Kimmy Schmitt

    Beyond this are MGTOW who believe ( ‘women are deceptive and will lie to get out of anything just because that’s their nature’, accordingly to Wikipedia this fits part of the ‘Four Levels of MGTOW, ranging from Level 0 ‘Situational Awareness’ where ‘the member has taken the red pill and embraces the idea that gender equality is a lie and propaganda’, through Level 1 and 2 – Rejection of Long and then Short-Term Relationships, through Level 3 – Economic Disengagement (views the government as tyrannical to Level 4 – Societal Disengagement.

    Peterson directly comments on MGTOW (Manosphere twitter links) but fails to grasp how he himself is endorsing the underlying beliefs.

    He says:

    MGTOW, They’ve had enough of women- have been divorced- don’t have a permanent relationship- don’t share your territory with a woman- don’t share your possession with a woman- don’t stay together long enough to be common law because you’ll be stripped of everything you have. They’ve confused the negative feminine archetype with ‘all women’. [mother wounding-> projection]. You’ve got to ask yourself

    ‘Maybe if you made the right sacrifices you wouldn’t have so much trouble with women’.

    Because the women are telling you what’s wrong with you’.

    Yeah jordan, we are.

    [It should be noted that the same attachment wounds inflicted on young males by their mothers which cause their rage toward the feminine and emotional detachment/fear of engulfment, and which make the manosphere so appealing, can also occur in/to women]

    A final aspect of toxic masculinity:

    (This is exactly what Peterson is doing…)

    Blaming women for unhappiness, either as an incel or by expecting them to emotionally regulate on behalf of men within a relationship IE emotional labour by female as opposed to self-reflection on feelings of unworthiness;

    This is unhealthy and contributes a lot more to incel violence than lack of orgasm inside a vagina.

    Men. Need. Feminism.

    If you find the feminists movement contrary and vexatious, or you don’t like this article and the media coverage of jordan, I’ll leave you with this: ‘Someone who’s cold, that is, low in agreeableness and high in conscientiousness, will tell you every time. ‘Don’t come whining to me. I don’t care about your hurt feelings. Do your goddamn job or you’re going to be out on the street.’ One might think, ‘Oh that person is being really hard on me.’ Not necessarily. They might have your long term best interest in mind. You’re fortunate if you come across someone who is disagreeable. Not tyrannically disagreeable, but moderately disagreeable and high in conscientiousness because they will whip you into shape. And that’s really helpful. You’ll admire people like that. You won’t be able to help it. You’ll feel like, ‘Oh wow, this person has actually given me good information, even though you will feel like a slug after they have taken you apart.’ -JP.

    I can only assume he wouldn’t expect or appreciate that person to be a woman.

    Here is a comic to understand emotional labour

    Resource: Understanding patriarchy

    Resource: Feminism reading list

    This is a collection of critiques placing Jordan Peterson’s more problematic ideas within a scientific, cultural and ideological context. It addresses him holistically as an individual to evaluate his appropriateness as a role model and mentor. There’s a lot to cover; please send refinements or additions. Where possible I have referenced or linked source, given the sheer volume of content this was not alway is possible if I have circled back to ideas from previously viewed JP content. This blog is split into two parts, Part 2 addresses feminism and masculinity in depth. Refer to the JP Master Page for the short overviews with links to blog video/article summary).


    ⁃ 12 rules of life is benign and unproblematic. JP as an activist, political and religious figurehead is less so–his ideas need to be read in a holistic social (not isolated intellectual) context

    ⁃ Seemingly innocuous ideas can have a problematic thread or undertow, and can be used to endorse or validate violent movements, and these ideas can be spread by a charismatic leader who mixes religious sermon with political claims; ‘life coaching’ is a Trojan horse for a reactionary political agenda as a replacement for progressive politics

    ⁃ ‘Cultural marxism’ is not a real threat and not a justification for discrimatory, selfish or violent behaviour (claims of postmodern neomarxist agenda border on paranoia ‘communists plotting to destroy the west’)

    ⁃ Dominance hierarchy is used to justify maintaining a status quo which benefits JP’s predominantly white privileged male following (caveat being, he is best selling), but also maintains and perpetuates toxic masculinity

    ⁃ Although he doesn’t explicitly endorse them, JP is paid by incels, religious conservatives and alt right groups, and his viewership is dominantly white males. (Moderates who casually endorse his ideas on twitter are not reflective of his bread and butter).

    ‘I image him as an over-reaction to an over-reaction. Both are understandable, to a degree; neither should be embraced uncritically.’ –black truths review


    Jordan Peterson is a brilliant psychologist and a seemingly open-minded and rational intellectual seeking understanding and meaning. He offers mostly benign, practical, comical and sometimes insightful life and relationship advice, such as spending 90 mins talking with your partner about your life once a week, with 1-2 date nights per week—

    —or of always eating breakfast, eating if you’re anxious, avoiding excessive exposure to catastrophic news, or intentionally doing something nice for others once a week if you tend not to be compassionate.

    Amongst my favourite of his quotes, ‘The Truth is the antidote to suffering’. I also like ‘I do not think that people can learn unless they admit that they’re wrong’. (These are salient in the context of what follows). His self-authoring suite (29.90) says ‘thinking about where you came from, who you are and where you are going helps you chart a simpler and more rewarding path through life.’ I agree, Jordan. Let’s.

    Who is he as a person?

    Clinically he may be warm. Ideologically he is cold, and often angry. He’s frustrated. He’s suspicious, cynical and at times bitter. Many of his ideas form a victim-persecuter-rescuer drama triangle.

    Ideas are not harmless or distinct from emotional reality. But he knows that. A smart intellect can justify anything. And he does.

    He claims to be rational. But like anyone, his deeper beliefs are emotionally motivated, conditioned, irrational and unevolved (with his fair share of fears). He is an emotional person—with his intellect in service of rationalising his conservative feelings and desire to possess and control.

    What does he do?

    He functions outside his scope.

    In part this may be due to a tendency to focus on ‘the Grand Narrative’ (especially in reaction to post-modernism), making evidence subservient to ideology.

    Humans are not like lobsters at all, biologically speaking. Marine invetabraes often mate polygamamously and change sex/gender:

    More specifically, there are 3 clawed lobster species, all north atlantic, and all of them do not have social heirarchy. Lobster are territorial, and solitary. Lobster of both sexes will fight each other like angry warriors, dominance isn’t based on sex, its based on size… They always back down from lobsters they have lost to, regardless of sex, some of this is regulated by dopamine, which Peterson argues creates a depression in lobsters: lobsters don’t get depressed, they only back away from fights they will lose. (More to the point, SSRIs in seawater make crustaceans lose normal, light-avoiding behavior).

    He says we diverged from lobsters evolutionarily history about 350 million years ago, but biologically, chordata (our phylum) and arthropoda (lobsters’ phylum) actually diverged over a billion years ago.

    JP has avoided referencing the large primates that live communally, EG bonobos, who have a lot of sex with males and females (pansexual) but only reproduce every 5-6 years. Bonobo community is run by female coalitions solidified by female/female sex, and males inherit social status matriarchally.

    The problem is we have bonobo men thinking they’re lobsters.

    In line with this, and if we’re going to look at it biologically:

    More to the point, the male penis is evolved to remove other men’s ejaculate. The human female ability to orgasm is fairly unique in the animal kingdom and functions for mate selection (as a representation of a males ability to devote himself to tasks that don’t bring him immediate rewards):

    Is JP a religious conservative?

    He’s incredibly intelligent and knows what not to say to lose an audience. Much of his psychological and self-help advice is well founded in his practice and from biblical wisdom, however as much as he seems a panacea to intellectuals who have eschewed religion for the intellect and rationale, he has simply repackaged the conservative belief system with a more intellectually appealing veneer. He presents ‘right-wing pieties seductively mythologized for our current lost generations’.

    In the West, we have been withdrawing from our tradition-, religion- and even nation-centred cultures.”-JP

    (This is patriotism. Which is often linked with racism, justifying war, genocide, and oppression)

    ‘Intact heterosexual two-parent families constitute the necessary bedrock for a stable polity.”…

    Children do better with two parents and it teaches them relationships are trustworthy- having two people intertwined is stronger than one- deepens life in a way that isn’t possible with fragmentary relationships with different people- marriage is a sacrament because it spiritually and psychologically grows us’.

    That may be true. But an intact family doesn’t equal a healthy family.

    In one clip ( he eventually answers that yes he is Christian. At another time he says he doesn’t believe god exists but he’s afraid he does. He believes in evolution. He admires Christ and tries to emulate him (and at times perhaps thinks he is him). But JP often engages in intellectual tomfoolery to avoid directly answering. He says he doesn’t like being asked if he believes in god cos he doesn’t want to be boxed in and I believe that’s likely true ( At times he says that Christianity is how we act not what we believe (which I agree with and in that sense, am Christian) but as with his use of the term ‘marxist’, dilutes the meaning of the term as to make all kind people ‘Christian’. FWIW, apparently he has said he would like to buy a church to hold sermons, and has called the Bible “vital to proper psychological health.”

    (Image required)

    He defines ‘truth’ in a way that seems self-serving, dishonest and unrealistic, (aka’ if it serves it human life it is true’, this has been rebutted in various YouTube videos link) although in a spiritual sense he may be correct in there being two levels of reality (EG there are Newton’s laws and there are quantum laws).

    Why is JP famous? (THE BILL)

    The bill he opposed was designed to prevent hate speech relating to transgender people being bashed and killed—which happens. When fighting against trans people’s rights, he made it ostensibly an argument about freedom of speech. However underneath that was thinly veiled conservative judgment wrapped up in the word ‘detest’. ‘I am not going to be a mouthpiece for language that I detest’- JP..….

    His opposition can be taken in the the context of him saying that ‘believing that gender identity is subjective is as bad as claiming the world is flat’. Peterson has made clear that he disagrees with the premise of transgender identity — that biological sex and gender are independent, calling the assertion “wrong” at a Harvard lecture. In testimony against efforts to provide legal protection trans people in Canada, Peterson called trans identities “social constructionism”. Closely examined this goes beyond denying the experience of transgender people but is also vaguely homophobic. The idea that it was about something other than ‘free speech’ is supported by his wife’s activism against Bill 28, ‘All Families Are Equal Act’ which proposed changing the language in legislation about families from “mother” and “father” to the gender-neutral “parents.” (and supported by JP in the above quotes about how children are best raised).

    The text of the Bill itself, available via google, contains no mention of gender pronouns whatsoever. The relevant sections of the Canadian Criminal Code are §318 and §319 (below).

    ‘In order to prove that Bill C-16 risks the kinds of censorship you describe, you have to prove that the refusal to use particular personal pronouns carries a probable risk of physical violence against trans people and the gender-nonconformist;  then, in order to defend the position you began with, you need to demonstrate that this violence is preferable to the curtailing of free pronoun-use.’

    ‘Peterson is perfectly free to express whatever opinion about trans people he may wish (provided they do not meet the standards of hate speech described below), but in his day-to-day interactions with them, he is bound to behave, to use his word, in a “civilized” fashion. You may claim that this is still an undue limitation on free speech. You may claim that not being able to refer to a black person as “it” is some fundamental encroachment from the “censorious left.” You may argue that society, “Marxist” or otherwise, suffers when we are not able to demean, dehumanize, and humiliate others whenever we feel the need. Yes, if you’d like, you may argue this – best of luck with it.’

    It’s hard to appreciate the mindset of someone who looks at the suicide and murder rates among trans people, the obvious and sometimes crippling social burdens they face, and concludes that they chose their identity due to transient fashions. – Black truths of JP.

    In line with this, the bill was passed into law, and none of Jordan’s catastrophising came to pass.

    JP has said he wishes to remove humanities departments (starve them) to cut off “the supply to the people that are running the indoctrination cults- create a website listing university courses that promote such points of view, calling them “postmodern neo-Marxist cult classes,” again because of the ”murderous doctrine’. He has also said ‘I think disciplines like women’s studies should be defunded,” he said. “We’re causing full time, destructive employment for people who are causing nothing but trouble. What they promote has zero intellectual credibility.” – JP

    (This is ironic as philosophy, political science and psychology, JPs domains, are humanities subjects; a ‘Bachelor of arts majoring in psychology’ is the same content/faculty as a ‘behavioural/social science’ degree and from a Meta-theory perspective, if free will exists, aka we’re not mechanical cause->effect, psychology can’t be a science, anyway). Hypocritically wanting to remove aspects of education AKA form of sensorship to ideas he finds threatening. The notion that academia is corrupt and evil is right wing and is the same place where flat earthers are borne from. There is no pro-Marxist conspiracy. JP demonises the left and diminishes the risks of the right (EG no access to abortion, white supremacy, no gun control, no protection for vulnerable populations) likewise demonising communism without acknowledging the risks of capitalism (belief in profit leading to slavery, genocide and imperialism). He is concerned with the supposed murderous Marxist doctrine but not with the violence of the alt-right.

    ‘For Jordan, it appears, not all speech is equal, and not all disruption and violence are equal, either.’ (Article in the star, below).

    His approach is authoritarian (in contrast to the left, and to his supposed support of free speech). This is very much a tactic of the right who focus on supposed freedoms (guns, hate speech) while seeking to restrict and control others in significant ways (EG access abortion, immigration).

    ‘Cultural marxism will censor you’, this is the same ‘red-tide’ fear used as propaganda to justify the Vietnam war, and this fear is the weapon of dictators.

    What are his ideas?

    JP has baggage verging on obsession with the Cold War and is paranoid that political correctness will lead to naziism. He studied naziism for four decades, and lives in a state of fear and suspicion, intentionally, as he adorns his house with nazi paraphernalia (communist propaganda, execution scenes, soldiers looking noble— ‘a constant reminder of atrocities and oppression’). He follows the intellectual trajectory common among Western right-wingers who imply that belief in egalitarianism leads straight to the guillotine or the Gulag. This mental fixation gives him a warped and distorted world view which leaves his otherwise seemingly sound advice untrustworthy.

    [Refer to the relevant blogs critiquing why postmodernism is not the same as Marxism, and zizek’s discussion of the conspiracy theory behind ‘cultural Marxism’.]


    and after all the talk of dominance hierarchies being natural and required, he says:

    Intellectually, his gurus are Jung (who called the Jewish psyche inferior and was initially sympathetic to the Nazis), Campbell (who’s loathing of “Marxist” academics at his college concealed a virulent loathing of Jews and blacks), and his mentor Solzhenitsyn was a zealous Russian expansionist.

    Nowhere in his published writings does Peterson reckon with the moral fiascos of his gurus and their political ramifications; he seems unbothered by the fact that thinking of human relations in such terms as dominance and hierarchy connects too easily with such nascent viciousness such as misogyny, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. He might argue that his maps of meaning aim at helping lost individuals rather than racists, ultra-nationalists, or imperialists. But he can’t plausibly claim, given his oft-expressed hostility to the “murderous equity doctrine” of feminists, and other progressive ideas, that he is above the fray of our ideological and culture wars.”

    What do his peers think?

    ‘I do not know if he is unwilling to learn because of his biases, or if he knows he is wrong and is simply lying. Either way the effect is the same; his attempt to paint marxism and post-modernism as the same makes no sense theoretically but makes sense for his intentions, it functions similarly to a term like cultural marxism, it throws together different ideas into one pile, from marxism Leninism, to critical theory, to post structuralism, to intersectional feminism, labels all of it bad in a single motion, by pretending these different movements have the same origin and intent, one avoids the hard work of actually engaging with the theory and simplifies the world to the point where it can identify a single main enemy which prevents the status quo from being as good as it otherwise would : pure ideology “

    Recently a long term friend and colleague of JP wrote:

    ‘I am alarmed by his now-questionable relationship to truth, intellectual integrity and common decency, which I had not seen before. His output is voluminous and filled with oversimplifications which obscure or misrepresent complex matters in the service of a message which is difficult to pin down. He can be very persuasive, and toys with facts and with people’s emotions. I believe he is a man with a mission. It is less clear what that mission is.’
    Open access PDF here


    He is full of contradictions. There is no real gospel, it’s all run on sentences and rhetoric that dissolves like candy floss put in water by a raccoon.

    His followers cry ‘cherry picking’ but the reality is that his intellectual landscape is so disparate/undetermined there’s naught to do but cherrypick. If he presented something cohesive and consistent it wouldn’t be the case; as it stands it’s iimpossible for critics to build a rebuttal without the perpetual ‘but in this video he said….’. Hundreds of hours of videos, a 1200+ page monolith publication, 100+ studies…. At some point he negates everything he says, usually in word, but also in implication or action. And if something he says doesn’t go down well, he just issues a blog or interview saying something else. When he says it isn’t what he thinks, he isn’t lying: most of his ideas are inconsistent.

    In answering questions he is intentionally not concise or direct, and keeps anything controversial (like religiosity or right wing notions) under wraps. He states appealing facts but doesn’t form a direct cohesive argument. He reframes questions and gives long meandering answers which induce fatigue and function to distract, but also make it very difficult to rebut or criticise him. To understand his beliefs you need to watch multiple clips and piece together his belief system.

    What is he fighting for?

    Given his derisive demonisation of ‘social justices warriors’ (SJW’s) -!; scorn for compassion, presumably not social justice—

    —which is the basis of ‘left’ ideas such as equal rights, environmental protection, social security safety nets for the disabled, old and misfortunate (as anyone could experience tragic loss), individual identity and equality. While some criticisms of the left may be valid (EG the stifling of even slightly different opinions within the left, excessive use of PC or legislation being misused), it doesn’t justify an international backlash (against what is a localised problem i.e. excessive political correctness ) which then targets gender equality and civil rights of vulnerable populations, and the validity of that particular criticism doesn’t make the underlying/original argument any less true (anymore than people using the bible to justify homophobic invalidates all Christianity) and doesn’t make the converse arguments true (i.e. dominance heirachies and gender inequality is natural and desirable). Likewise, the truth and reasonableness of his psychological advice doesn’t make his more extreme political perspectives true and reasonable.

    JP doesn’t identify as alt-right, and yet the bulk majority of his argument is vocally anti-left. That’s one point that is clear and consistent. He doesn’t accept the conservative label (going as far as to threaten to sue), but there’s left, right and centre and he’s at times violently anti-left. His videos validate conservative men.
    ’12 Rules For Life is a fast-acting, short-term analgesic that will make many of his readers feel better temporarily, while failing to address their underlying problem. On the contrary, the book often fuels the very sense of entitled need which, when it goes unsatisfied, causes such pain and outrage.’

    In the short term, his self help seems functional, but long term the result is being drip fed what is essentially a right wing, capitalist, religious, conservative, men-above-women rhetoric—as such, his videos are circulated by neo-Nazis and incels. This can function as a form of grooming, especially for young men looking for a sense of acceptance and community ( The dynamic was similar with those who voted for Trump without realising the reality of what he stood for and would do. But no one who was paying attention and taking him seriously was surprised.

    You know your life is useless and meaningless,” Peterson says in his “Advice” video, turning towards the viewer, “you’re full of self-contempt and nihilism.” He doesn’t follow all of this rousing self-hatred with an answer, but rather merely teases at one. “[You] have had enough of that,” he says to a classroom full of men. “Rights, rights, rights, rights…

    (Linguistic analysis shows extensive crossover between trump and ‘mens rights’ communities, see below).

    Jordan is fighting to maintain the status quo to keep chaos [aka the feminune] at bay, or so he believes. He is not a free speech warrior. He is a social order warrior.’

    The JP demographic has been coined as ‘failson’- young males who capitalism has failed who are looking for someone to blame, as they were told they’re special but it didn’t amount to something. Either the world has short changed them or everything they believe is a lie. So blame, dismissal and minimisations cloaked in intellectual rhetoric feels good. Similarly, an entire country followed Hitler because he gave them hope, because he knew exactly what to say to prey on their insecurities and emotions after WW1.

    The JP rhetoric argues for winners and losers, which is problematic on so many levels; the authoritarian worldview naturalises domination (domination is not possible without an inferior who is controlled and suppressed) and reinforces the underlying belief system of young men who feel like losers by convincing them they can be winners. This is just flipping to the other side of the coin without addressing the problem. Ideology like this is about being superior, in control, and trampling.

    It ties into the same tangled belief system of men who devalue women who reject or challenge them; as women should be ‘conscientious and agreeable’. It reinforces the toxic masculinity idea that men have to be aggressive, including towards others. (JP has behaved this way on social media towards individuals who critiqued him in New York review (He called Mishra a “sanctimonious prick”, an “arrogant racist son of a bitch”, said he would “slap him” if he was in the room, and rounded it up with a final “fuck you”.); he has since stopped replying directly but instead posts the critiques to his Twitter with a brief sarcastic ad hominim comment, presumably with full understanding his followers will aggressively respond on his behalf, as they have in the past, keeping his hands clean but establishing an hostile environment where journalists and writers are afraid to cover him; he has stated a dark part of himself would enjoy ‘sick my trolls on c4, there’d be nothing but broken windows and riots’). He argues against “softness,” arguing that men have been “pushed too hard to feminize.”

    He says that it’s ‘Better to be strong than weak‘, laughs about physical aggression and ‘toughening up‘ young children.

    This stems back to Zionist ideas and philosophers such as Sorel who were nostalgic of patriachial societies in Ancient Greece; these hyper-masculinist thinkers saw compassion as a vice and urged insecure men to harden their hearts against the weak (women and minorities) on the grounds that the latter were biologically and culturally inferior.

    As he sees this as desirable, he doesn’t understand feminism at all.

    Their goal is to restructure the patriarchy. The patriarchy is Western civilization. And what does restructure mean? That’s easy—it means tear it down”. JP to Joe Rogan in 2016.

    Healthy” women want men who “outclass” them in intelligence, dominance and status’ JP in 12 Rules of Life

    JP fails to acknowledge that many females are naturally more competitive and disagreeable than many males, and many relationships are an inverse dynamic i.e. an agreeable male with a dominant female. (While the extremes are disparate, the bell curves overlap, see below). There is nothing wrong with this, it is yin and yang and part of reality, but the JP framework says it’s not okay or natural). When the flawed map doesn’t map onto the territory, the result is anger and resentment, and the brunt of the resulting inadequacy is projected onto women. The problem with JP’s philosophy (EG men are dominant women are agreeable) is much like porn culture, it creates and endorses unrealistic expectations that make men feel shame and rage when they do not come true, and as he discusses in his video, generally leads to contempt for women. This is a case of Peterson creating an outcome he purports to avoid.

    JP’s advice is also based on shaming men. (“Maybe it’s not the world that’s at fault. Maybe it’s you. You’ve failed to make the mark.”… “if you got yourself together completely, maybe all the suffering would disappear from your life… suffering because we’re not yet what we could be, but at least that’s an answer we have some control over”…. “You have an evil heart — like the person next to you”). Shaming is an unhealthy approach, a form of toxic masculinity (see below); the worldview is problematic in the same way Catholicism induces guilt.

    What is his relationship to the feminine?

    JP has issues with women. This is mixed in between the platitudes and usually only implicit (EG the vocal tone changes in 12 rules when discussing female cartoon characters, or in interviews about feminists, with pejoratives about ‘crazy women’, workplace harassment etc), but is sometimes explicit.

    (-Quoted in the NYtimes)

    Culture is symbolically, archetypally, mythically male”

    —thus resistance to male dominance is unnatural.

    Men represent order, and “Chaos—the unknown—is symbolically associated with the feminine.”

    —men resisting the fixed archetypes of male and female, and failing to toughen up, are pathetic losers -> this is toxic masculinity. It also ironic as his wife and her his daughter organise his schedule.

    JP states Order is better than chaos. Masculine is order, feminine is chaos. VIS A VIE men are better than women, their way of being is superior and preferable. He says that women are compassionate & caring, and then decries compassion and promotes aggression and competition.

    [Btw JP: ‘Compassion’ is not actually the same as a devouring mother archetype. Empathy is not the same as sympathy or pity. Psyc101.]

    He argues against compassion but conflates that with victimhood, while simultaneously bestowing the same on young men. Drama triangle ideas run through his rhetoric: so-called marginalized people are not really victims at all but are in fact aggressors, enemies, who must be shut down (as are humanities departments), and yet he views men as victims: ‘The masculine spirit is under assault, It’s obvious.” This forms part of his persecution complex. In argument for enforced monogamy, he says ‘Half the men fail [meaning that they don’t procreate]. And no one cares about the men who fail.”… ‘It’s awful. It’s so destructive. It’s so unnecessary. And it’s so sad.

    The empathy that he displays for men and boys is limited to them, in an either-or, good guys and bad guys, with no room for anyone else’s concerns, even if in real terms the suffering is marginal in comparison EG their lives are not being threatened, spiritual concerns compared to police brutality, violent harassment, poverty, rape, murder, etc.

    When he says ‘nobody cares about men at the bottom‘ he is engaging the victim mentality in a way which is entirely contradictory given his assertions that 1) hierarchies are natural and 2) they’re predicated on competence and 3) his refusal or Marxist class equality and corrective action—not to mention that feminism critique of toxic masculinity would benefit the men at the bottom.

    Any hierarchy creates winners and losers. The winners are, of course, more likely to justify the hierarchy and the losers more likely to criticize it.” –JP

    Is he racist?

    Dr. Peterson presented the case for taking personal responsibility over blaming others for one’s personal status in life. The accusation of “white privilege” is a fertile fallacy wrapped in the self-righteous robes of “social justice” as it reduces cultural and social issues down to immutable characteristics as opposed to individual decisions and responsibilities.

    Speech at ‘sovereign nations’: link to concise summary

    This completely dismisses the cultural context of history and power. White people are not privy to positions of power and affluence due to being any smarter, hard working, or motivated than blacks. However there is a system in place which prevents upward social mobility. Hard work isn’t enough. People are not born to equal opportunity. This excessive focus on the individual to the exclusion of cultural systems and power structures works well for those who the systems benefits and blames those who it doesn’t.

    ‘Peterson’s message fits perfectly with the prevailing ideology that has driven public-policy debates in North America since the 1980s: People should be able to succeed on their own, without help from the state. This message intentionally erases systemic barriers that perniciously remain and instead demonizes anyone who understands that collective advancement is the key to improvement.’

    These trends can change only when people work together and demand improvements, whether it’s locally through community activism, or on a larger scale. But that kind of thinking would put Peterson out of work. Peterson’s logic preys on people already in despair and puts them into a cycle that they cannot improve on their own. He’s creating a cadre of dependent disciples.

    It’s here that Peterson must be challenged: not on the logical inconsistencies of his rationale, or the aesthetic manner in which he debates. There are a lot of young men who are in a lot of pain. But we need to link Peterson’s rhetoric to the economic policies that are hurting them and break his individualistic narrative of personal liberation.
    Nora Loretto

    [Peterson acknowledges this in passing in reference to women doubling the work force- which indeed may have contributed to the requirement for dual incomes…]

    In the epitome of privleged ignorance Peterson states that in North America environmental factors such as education and nutrition are controlled for as anyone can access a computer and anyone can eat well if they want to. Tell that to people in the Bronx in a fresh food desert. Pure stupidity given the context of him discussing financial inequality being on a Pareto distribution. He also doesn’t understand that racism makes people more likely to be harmed (disenguously framing and dismissing efforts to improve cyclist safety which will attract a wider range of cyclists than 85% white middle class male, as if building more paths is ridiculous pc…


    Some of these ideas on race were well addressed in the debate with Stephen fry; some extracts and comments here

    On a more superficial level, this is a well-known form of cognitive bias ‘My achievements are due to my personality and my failures are due to circumstances, but others success is due to luck and their failures are due to character flaws’. (Link)

    Peterson is tone deaf.

    Intelligence, youth, temperament, education, health, athleticism: these are skills and differences. RACE IS NOT. It should not be on this list. He doesn’t get it at all. People have implicit biases about sex and race. Especially in the case of race, there’s no way it can be justified as an actual difference. That’s why it is a discriminatory privilege.

    He would have you believe the capitalist lie that anyone can make it if they work hard enough. White people are not shot and incarcerated for being in a backyard. They were not subject to a genocide in Australia. And his lobster analogy could lead one to conclude it justifiable that we killed them, seen as were able to dominate them.

    JP is a cult leader for conservatives, hyper conservatives and the alt right, as much as he may denounce those labels. His ideas fall in line with their ideology. He’s a belief system match. His ideas and rhetoric works for groups such as neo nazis. He proudly says his support groups are run by PUAs in Toronto—and its obviously why, because the rhetoric matches (for example, negging is problematic as a form of demeaning and devaluing women). This forms a blind spot for him however, where he is otherwise very willing to call rape apologist to Muslim gang rapes:

    JP says “no one can talk about” about how the declining birth rate in the west will be catastrophic because of “egalitarianism and diversity”, again watching his words and only implying rather than explicitly stating his meaning.

    ‘To be clear, Jordan Peterson is not a neo-Nazi, but there’s a reason he’s as popular as he is on the alt-right. You’ll never hear him use the phrase “We must secure a future for our white children”; what you will hear him say is that, while there does appear to be a causal relationship between empowering women and economic growth, we have to consider whether this is good for society, “‘’cause the birth rate is plummeting.” He doesn’t call for a “white ethnostate,” but he does retweet Daily Caller articles with opening lines like: “Yet again an American city is being torn apart by black rioters.” Quote-

    JP outright denies the reality of racism (to the the extent that racial studies were on the list of subjects HRV wanted defunded). ‘islamophobia is a word created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons’. Tell that to muslims being abused in the street. Islamophobia leads to discrimination, beatings, and war and is spreading as a form of propaganda. It’s real and it’s racist.


    Continue reading Part Two Here


    Critiques of Jordan Peterson’s ideas

    Videos and clips referenced:

    Maps of meaning (relationship advice is one hour in)

    Further Reading

     Pink Brain, Blue Brain: How Small Differences Grow Into Troublesome Gaps — And What We Can Do About It . This is a popular critique of modern biological sex research.

    re: white settlement

    Epic sad face.

    Paper on Wollongong Aboriginal history: ‘a system whereby you entered upon another’s land only upon invitation or after following due protocol’; Right, so what’s with the common myth that the Aboriginals were wanderers who didn’t claim land? Is that just taught for the purposes of lessening the white responsibility for us stealing their land…..?

    This happened.

    ‘World Allergy Organization (WAO) Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow’s Milk Allergy (DRACMA) Guidelines’.

    60, 000 words. Lots of references. Sounds promising.

    1. ‘Milk allergens of various mammalian species cross-react. The greatest homology is among cow’s, sheep’s and goat’s milks protein as Bos (oxen), Ovis (sheep), and Capra (goat) are genera belonging to the Bovidae family of ruminants. Proteins in their milks have less structural similarity with those from the Suidae (pig), Equidae (horse and donkey), and Camelidae (camel and dromedary) families and also from those of humans. The milks of camels and dromedaries (and human milk) do not contain Bos d 5.’

    As in, cow, sheep and goats milks (the ones we drink), are most unlike human milk, and make us sick. Unlike pig, horse, donkey, camel and human milk, which we do not drink. And do not make us sick.

    2. ‘Caseins are thought to be easily digestible, but they coagulate in an acidic medium (at gastric pH).’

    Our stomach is acidic, right? So cows milk coagulates when we drink it? Gross.

    3.  ‘Blah blah blah, we apply all these scientific processes to milk by heating and boiling and hydrolysing it and then it won’t make you as sick’.

    This seems silly. So much time and effort devoted to figuring out why cows milk makes us sick. Why not devote that energy to getting more women to breastfeed, or researching mastitis in humans instead of cows, for example? Or organising milk sharing… Surely we have better solutions than feeding babies highly processed not-foods?

    4. ‘The absence of gut microbiota significantly increases the milk-specific immune response in mice… prevention and treatment of milk allergy through the manipulation of the gastrointestinal flora.’

    Right. So, our guts are fucked. And if we fix them, we get less sick.

    5. ‘In particular, patients with psychologic disorders may attribute adverse reactions to milk ingestion. Physicians must also make their patients aware that cow’s milk allergy is not a frequent occurrence in adults, that cow’s milk intolerance is widespread and that thus milk allergy may not be the cause of their complaint’.

    Mm.. except that the stomach to brain link is well-established. Like, in the myriad of studies on IBS and depression. And didn’t you just write in like, the body of every section of this document, that non-IgE mediated allergies are not well-understood, measured, tested or researched? So how can you say they’re not sick from milk?

    6. ‘Adverse reactions to lactose are common, as most of the world population is lactase deficient. Treatment involves limiting the intake of fresh milk to the individually tolerated level.’

    7. ‘In many cases, gastrointestinal food allergy remains undiagnosed or is classified as irritable bowel syndrome’

    8. ‘Cow’s milk-induced proctocolitis syndrome is a relatively benign disorder resulting in low-grade rectal bleeding (usually flecks of blood) and occasionally mild diarrhea in an otherwise healthy infant.’

    Milk makes our babies bellies bleed. Tell me again why we’re still talking about eating it?

    9. ‘Cows milk allergy has been reported in 70% of children with chronic constipation.’

    ‘Claims for high-level evidence studies to clarify the physiological, immunologic, and biochemical relationships between constipation and cows milk allergy are missing’–

    ?? Huh? But didn’t you just say…

    10. ‘Negative Oral Food Challenge expands dietary options and thereby nutrition and quality of life. It is also cost-sparing and reduces the use of special formula’…. ‘avoidance means meeting obstacles unshared by their nonallergic peers, thereby curtailing their quality of life’


    11. ‘A negative “remission” challenge ends up with the open reintroduction of cow’s milk and dairy products. This represents for the patient an important step toward a “normal” personal and social life. However, many patients do not of themselves ingest the food and pursue an “unofficial” elimination diet. Reasons include fears of persistence of CMA, recurrent pruritus or nonspecific skin rashes after ingesting milk. After a negative challenge, however, a patient with CMA should not be lost to medical monitoring, to prevent such untoward eliminations’


    ‘The WAO Special Committee on Food Allergy is supported through unrestricted educational grants from various charities and companies that are representative of the food industry: Danone, Heinz, Ordesa, Nestle Nutrition, Dico-farm, and Invest for Children’.

    Fuck this shit. I’m out.


    ‘The mother will require calcium supplements while on a dairy-free diet’… That should’ve given it away.

    Oh, and:

    ‘In the developed world, other milks can never constitute the treatment of choice for Cow’s Milk Allergy. Camel’s milk can be considered a valid substitute for children after 2 years. Equine milks can be considered as valid CM substitutes, in particular (but not exclusively) for children with delayed-onset CMA’.

    Horse milk, anyone?

    Man-made foods.

    ‘A burger made with lab-grown meat will be unveiled for the first time at a London event next month’.

    This is just silly. And foolish. And irresponsible. And ill-fated.

    Everytime man thinks he can improve on nature, he effs everything up. And this is taking it up a level, to solve a problem using the same means which got us into the current food and health situation. The human, societal and health ramifications of this are likely to be immense. They are unfathomable, and it is highly unlikely they will be constructive. Humans are attempting to negotiate a not negotiable situation: Ownership of the growing of their food.

    I understand your desire to reduce animal suffering, and I respect that, but I believe you would be trading it for human suffering in the longterm, and I think that is worse, because it will in turn cause more planetary suffering in general. Sick humans cannot govern a healthy planet. What is happening with factory farming and chronic, preventable disease is not okay. This will, however, create a whole new set of problems, without even necessarily solving the current problems. Everyone won’t accept this. And whatever ‘real’ meat is still farmed, will still be farmed as economically as possible, within a capitalist society. A deeper overhaul is instead required.  This is a band-aid solution. It doesn’t heal anything. I’d prefer to have people either take responsibility for their food (and their health), by growing and killing their own animals for consumption only a few times a week, or be vegetarian or vegan.

    Just because it is natural doesn’t mean it’s good, no. Like women dying during childbirth. But is much that is unnatural proved to be good? Or without unforeseen cost and consequence? I am passionate about animal rights, and the environment, but also about human health. Every time science has come up with a way to ‘feed the world, cheaply’ which isn’t for people to take their own responsibility for what the eat, it’s disastrous. Like processed meat causing cancer. Or homogenization and pasteurization contributing to milk allergies and lactose intolerance. Or pesticide use creating deformed babies. Or processed food causing diabetes. Or high fructose corn syrup causing an obesity epidemic and lowered life expectancy. (The list goes on and on…). Science would demand facts, but ‘scientific fact’ ≠ wise. Science only ever sees one segment of a given reality at a time. The ‘facts’ of fact-ory farming created the current environmental and health problems in the first place. (Like, science saying that it would be okay to cramp animals together and use antibiotics to control infection. Or to make them grow unnaturally fast and ‘meaty’, which means with more saturated fat, less omegas and vitamin D, which means more cardiovascular disease). Science gives us the isolated ‘facts’, and reason and ethics give us the decisions. Reason tells me this is not good. Ethics tells me this is not good. We’re creating science fiction monsters.

    Humans generally get ill in some shape or form when they eat anything not as nature intended. Our society shows me that. It is ethically wrong not to exercise the cautionary principle. We can’t know the generational effects, and they may be irreversible. It’s unnecessary, and reckless. Humans are missing the point and not learning from their mistakes.  All of the man made foods make people sick. Why would this be any different?

    Here’s a better idea.


    As in: my friend came round to my house and couldn’t understand why I had a pair of earphones which only partly worked sitting in my to-give-away pile and not in the bin. As in, the man at the Holden dealership washes every car in the lot in any given 2 day period, over the grate in the yard which says ‘drains to ocean’. As in, I went jogging and the bay was bubbly, and the fish shop’s floor bleach was sudsing directly into the harbour. As in, someone gave me a lip balm, I opened it and didn’t like it, and now the second hand shop can’t sell or give it away. Rubbish, as in, my veggies come tied with rubber bands each week (Wanted: loving home for over-flowing jar of various size and coloured elastic).

    Clothes with holes in them. Pens, mobile phones, memory cards, cameras and hard-drives that don’t work.
    Outdated books. Worn out shoes. Rusty bikes. Broken bamboo strainers. Rusty frypans. Empty jars (for the love of god..)

    Old toothbrushes, razors, dental floss. LANDFILL. What else, where else, can they go?

    I am in the uncomfortable position of having things I needed or was given, which I no longer need, or can no longer use. They accumulate in a pile, which I end up resignedly throwing in the bin. If I have to.

    The empty boxes that rings come in. Bubble wrap. Gourmet plastic bags (you know the ones). Normal plastic bags. Wrapping paper. Mail bags, mail boxes. Styrofoam padding. The twine and ribbon that comes on new clothing. Scraps of material. URGH. Reduce, reuse, recycle, right? Well, HOW? Cos shit is just accumulating.

    Community would help. People in other places are buying bubble wrap, and boxes, and elastic bands. Society Fail.

    Earlier this month I entered a competition, and (for the first time ever) won. A copy of the e-book by the Hitchhiker Guru Kurt Provost, titled Smiling at Strangers: How to hitchike. To be honest, I didn’t think he could tell me much I didn’t already know first-hand. Even though I had homework to knock over, I idly flicked through it… and ended up reading the whole thing. Kurt Provost has hitched to more continents than I have. He smiles as much as me (or more, if that’s possible), and he loves tahini. So it seemed fitting to review it here at tahinipaste.

    This book is basically the book I would have written if I made a ‘how-to’ guide. It contains practical advice: where to stand, how to look, what to wear, who to approach. It tackles attitude, i.e. how to think about it, and intuition, which is crucial. The inclusion of this chapter was the section which reassured me that I could refer novices to the book. Crucial. On the other hand, there were some points of divergence. In a frank manner, the book discussed the drug and alcohol abuse which is commonplace amongst travellers, especially those from the Western World. As someone who has travelled extensively on a limited budget, this bothered me. Travellers get a bad rap in some places, and this could constitute propagation of negative stereotypes. It exists, and is ‘normal’, that doesn’t mean it is right, or to be encouraged. The book is about hitchhiking, not sex drugs and rock and roll. Which leads me to my second point.

    Smiling at Strangers features a section titled ‘Female hitchikers’, an ambitious undertaking for a male to pen. To quote the hitch-hiking guru from elsewhere (and this absolutely cracked me up): ‘The amount of times a driver has assured me they knew a perfect hitchhiking spot and then dumped me in the centre of a city, leaving me with a wave and thumbs up as if they’d just left me in hitchhiker paradise‘. Similarly, although he is good-looking, the hitch-hiking guru is not a woman. He can’t possibly know what it is like to be one, and his idea of paradise may end a woman in hell. Again from Kurt,  ‘Miracles happen when I drive’, and my idea of true liberation is for every female to know how that feels. Hitching is one way to open yourself up to miracles, and there is no reason why to not experience that just because you were born a girl. For women even more so than men, hitchhiking can be an experience of stepping outside your usual identity, making yourself anew, and seeing what you are capable of. It can be an opportunity to stand on your own two feet in the most literal way possible. In doing so, you may be challenged to face the darker side of what it may mean to be a woman in today’s society. Face this as soon as possible, hold an awareness of it, and free yourself to embrace the opportunity to experience the light the world has to offer you.

    I would take any advice about using fake alibi’s or carrying weapons with a grain of salt. Lying, when someone knows you are lying, could easily make you reek of vulnerability. Why would someone who was secure in themselves lie? Do always be prepared, because luck is when preparation meets opportunity. This extends to facing and accepting the real possibility you may die, or to a lesser extent end up cold, hungry, tired, lost or confused. Are you willing to accept these possibilities? Accept it, and move on. I agree to ‘not carry weapons as I see them as escalating or attracting a negative situation. My most powerful weapon is my mind and how I use it. Always remember, the way you think, speak and act is more powerful than carrying a weapon’, and this is true for the female as much as the male. Additionally, as a woman, I would offer the following additional advice:

    1# Don’t drink or take drugs when hitch-hiking. You need to be paying attention.
    2# Learn how to say no, Practice saying no.
    3# Don’t go out looking for a fight. Stay home if you’re feeling angry at men.
    4# Don’t buy into bullshit about you being the weaker, more vulnerable sex.
    5# Use the stereotypes about you being the weaker, more vulnerable sex to your advantage. Allow people to feel protective of you.
    6# Follow all the other rules laid out by Kurt. Smile. As far as intuition is concerned, you have the upper hand. Utilise.
    7# Understand that people will trust you if you trust in yourself.  You are safe to the degree you trust yourself. Have a good close look at your fear and your beliefs. If you are not willing to step up and face up to them, you are not ready to hitch, let alone hitch alone.
    8# Be clear on what you want. If someone makes an advance or an insinuation, make it clear you are not interested. Stay calm; do not get upset, frustrated, or confused by someones advances. Assert yourself, if required, do so aggressively. Do not be afraid to be rude or hurt someone’s feelings. At the same time, do not use asserting yourself as an opportunity to become the victim or make the other person into the ‘bad guy’. Take responsibility for maintaining your personal space.
    9# Understand that society is structured a certain way, with certain expectations, in certain times and places. You are challenging these, so expect resistance or judgement.
    10# Have fun. You will find it easier (and quicker) to hitchhike than a man ever will.

    Smiling at Strangers makes an amusing and (sometimes) wise guide to the wannabe hitcher. For some who will never take that first step out into possible rejection, it will make for an enjoyable vicarious experience. Each new time and place I hitch, I am required to step into my own shoes and ask for what I want. Ask, and you shall receive: and so it is with hitch-hiking. You have to be willing to have a brave game face and a sense of humour. You need to be willing to be flexible, adaptive and good-spirited. You need to let the path lead you as much as you make it. As a final note, I want to add that you will find what you need. If you don’t need it, you probably won’t find it. If you can afford to, take the bus.

    See the photo that won the comp here, and find the e-book here:

    A man in powdery foundation is nodding vacuously as I gesture with my purple mittens. My face is greasy with tester ‘Vanessa Megan’ Nature’s Elixir face oil. The microphone remains thrust in my direction as I repeat ‘I just don’t understand why these people are protesting’. Whose interests do they think theyre fighting for, their own and their children’s? Do they even know?

    I rewind and replay the scene in my mind as I check my hair in a public toilet. It could’ve been worse. I asked him not to include me mentioning I don’t watch TV, but let’s be honest, he’s gonna show what he wants. And it’s true, I don’t watch TV. They show what they want. I kick myself for not mentioning the crucial words ‘the privileged 1%’. One man who managed to form a semblance of a response to my repeated ‘Why?’ hinted at the fear amongst people that the economy, and thus the country, will collapse if we discourage mining. I wince at my own usage of the words ‘raping and pillaging’ the earth, though they ring of truth.

    I eat my wholefoods served in a plastic container as I write this. I know they could have made it from recycled paper, fallen leaves, plant materials. This plastic was obscenely cheap, as though they needed people to take it and use it. Why? Unnecessary landfill, ruined ecosystems. Someone pays the cost for things that come cheaply.

    I remember saying I was pleased with the electricity rebate, and… something about small business. Sweet Jesus. I am not qualified to make comments on small business. As an arts/psychology graduate, I am qualified to ask questions (such as ‘where did this stainless steel drink bottle came from, really?’, ‘why are you actually doing what you are doing, and what are the consequences on the individual and society at large?’). Such questions occupy and (dare I say it) amuse me, though the answers often come with disturbing ramifications.

    ‘People protest whatever the government does, whether its labour or liberal, they don’t like rules’. They also don’t like change, or the suggested solutions to the problems we are facing. Seems to me, we’re in over our heads. Their simplistic placards make a mockery of the prime minister’s face. People are great at resistance. We cling tenaciously to what we know, beyond its purported functionality; the definition of dysfunction. It’s clear there is an absence of holistic solutions to the problems created by narrow-minded, exploitative, arrogant human action.

    This blog is an edited version of a conversation I had with a person (marked in italics) who would like to remain anonymous.

    Eucalyptus poisoning inhibits my ability to bite my tongue: Fact.

    You know what they call the insects that eat eucalyptus? Spit-fire bugs.

    Here’s the thing. I believe you care, I believe you want to make a difference. I am not attacking you. I’m really sorry for the rant. I don’t intend to make you feel bad. I want to thank you for giving me a forum to speak and clarify. I am frustrated at the (short-sighted) ways that people are approaching attempting change. I respect your perspective, however, I want to challenge your way of thinking. You are in a position to reach people. That is important. You are passionate, and that is important as well. But think carefully about how you go about educating, and your intentions underlying your actions.

    ‘They sit and wait before they die; Listening in horror as the other rabbits scream and cry. Such a cruel existence, one can only wonder why?’

    I don’t really want to be seeing pictures of animal abuse. I am vegan for three years now, and so not responsible for what the people in these images are putting these people through. While raising awareness is important, I think putting energy in the direction of innovation, change and solutions is important. People know animal cruelty is happening. Nobody wants it to be happening. But as long as we are trying to provide meat cheaply, animals will suffer. As long as low prices drive the economy, companies will be trying to cut corners to drop costs. Have you seen the documentary ‘The corporation‘? I think it might help you to know what I mean.

    You are responsible. If you know these and you are not doing anything, you are responsible. If you know a better way to stop this, I’d be happy when to hear your way works. But don’t try to stop me. because you can’t. Hiding these facts not showing these images, isn’t that the reason that we all use to be involved in these murders? Isn’t it the reason that we didn’t know why we shouldn’t eat meat? Isn’t it the reason that we couldn’t make the connection between the food on our plate and animals in slaughterhouses? If these are happening why we shouldn’t show it? If it was happening to you would you still want me to don’t tell the others what’s happening to you?! It’s our job to tell them. If you don’t want to make your friends sad by showing them what they are doing to animals, I will post two pictures, one of them on behalf of you! Keep people in ignorance is exactly what industries want. I’m not gonna help them. You make your choice, I make mine.

    I am not responsible for the choices of others. I am responsible for my own choices. I am responsible for my own truth, and my own education, not that of others. If someone is blind, they choose to be, and that is their prerogative. I lead by example, and am open to sharing what I know and helping others to make a change when they request it. I used to be involved because I chose to be, and then I chose not to be. It had nothing to do with seeing a film. We all have our own truth inside ourselves. I always made the connection, I just chose to ignore it. As many other people do. I think if people knew more about food and cooking, they would naturally eat less meat. Nobody likes animal cruelty! But the point is that the problem is systematic. Do you know why things as are they are? You seem to think you are somehow seperate from the evil ‘corporations’- but they are ordinary people like you, working with the information and education they have, within a system that is inherently flawed. Disturbing images are alienating and sensationalist.

    If I see two men are hitting and killing a kid on the street. I will do something. I feel it’s my responsibility to stop them. I won’t take my time to make sure they are not gonna feel sad. They are killing the kid. You want to go and work on something else,  you feel like it’s none of your business,  you think it’s their choice: I don’t. I will do something. I think this is the difference between you and me.

    I’m not killing a kid, and this is not happening in my presence or because of my purchases. So why do I need to feel sad, or watch?

    Seriously? Because you can try to stop them killing the kid. And if you stop them the kid will stay alive, if you don’t the kid will be killed. Wasn’t that obvious?

    You assume that screaming at me that someone else is killing a kid, and making me upset, will change it. How will it? Go and scream at that person, not me. And even then, what will your anger do, if it happens behind closed doors?

    ‘If you’re not enraged, you’re not paying attention’, -Author unknown.

    It is possible to pay attention and hold awareness without being outraged. I am not sure anger is a constructive of emotion. I understand activists think it is, along with ‘resistance’, but I am not sure about that. I wonder how Buddha or Mahatma Ghandi would reply to that statement. What about compassionate understanding for all beings affected by suffering, including the humans? Your statement seems to hint at concepts of demonisation, in making someone the ‘bad’ guy, and I am just not sure that is the case. I understand what is happening to the animals is bad, it is horrible, and it makes me cry, but have you heard the stories about what of the factory workers who are involved in the process? My heart breaks for them as well. And the consumers are the ones who ultimately create the situation by needing low prices… but they are also struggling to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads.. So the problem isn’t a simple one. It is widespread and insidious. Calm reflective thought and conversation, meditation and prayer, as well as economic revolution, are what will help more so than outrage.

     It is very kind of you that your heart breaks for them, but if they were doing these things to your family, would you still mind about their reason? I ask again: If these were happening to your mother, father, or you sister and brother or your child, would you still pay attention without being outraged?! Please don’t tell me there is a difference. The only difference is you know those people and you like them more. But tell me what Buddha or Gandhi would do if they were alive? We are not killing these people. We are not hitting them. All we are doing is we show the world what they are doing, and we don’t even have to tell people that it is wrong. It’s obvious. I don’t care what do you feel after seeing this. Just do something. And don’t try to stop me.

    You are free, and I am not telling you to stop, I am just asking you to think about things a little deeper. You might have compassion for the animals, but you need to have compassion for the humans. That is what Buddha would say- compassion for ALL living beings. And you know what? In the words of Gibran:

    Oftentimes have I heard you speak of one who commits a wrong
    as though he were not one of you, but a stranger unto you and an intruder upon your world.
    If any of you would bring to judgment the unfaithful wife,
    Let him also weigh the heart of her husband in scales, and measure his soul with measurements.
    And let him who would lash the offender look unto the spirit of the offended.
    And if any of you would punish in the name of righteousness
    and lay the ax unto the evil tree, let him see to its roots;
    And verily he will find the roots of the good and the bad, the fruitful and the fruitless,
    all entwined together in the silent heart of the earth.

    The violence is within you, true change comes from within not without. If you want to go around telling people what they need to do, I will do the same for you, and I will say: You need to have compassion. Any action you take will be a reflection of the presence or absence of compassion and understanding within you. Again, Gibran:

    Yet you cannot lay remorse upon the innocent nor lift it from the heart of the guilty.
    Unbidden shall it call in the night, that men may wake and gaze upon themselves.
    And you who would understand justice, how shall you unless you look upon all deeds in the fullness of light?
    Only then shall you know that the erect and the fallen are but one man
    standing in twilight between the night of his pigmy-self and the day of his god-self,
    And that the corner-stone of the temple is not higher than the lowest stone in its foundation.

    I don’t care what people do. I don’t want to change anyone. I don’t have the time to change anyone. I don’t care what people eat. I don’t care what people think. I don’t care what’s people’s goals. I don’t care what’s people’s way.  I want to stop killing and torturing animals, and humans. The most right way that I found, and the most powerful and humane way that I’ve found, IS TELLING THEM THE TRUTH. It seems like we have different perspectives. You want to keep people happy while they are killing animals. I think if you are killing and torturing animals or humans, you should feel sad. I’m not sure with your food how are you going to stop killing animals for their skins, stop torturing and killing animals in labs, for entertainment, stop killing animals in shelters… I have many people that come to me and ask me about veganisim, and they become vegan just because I showed them the truth. This is my way. Every second millions of animals are being killed. I don’t have time to use political ways. My way is : Just tell ’em the Truth. If the truth is sad, and makes you sad, and makes you cry, It’s not my fault. It’s happening. And we need to know.

    You think it’s okay to use to anger, guilt and sadness to motivate people. I don’t. I don’t believe change motivated by anger, guilt and blame will be lasting.

    No, I think it’s okay to tell them the Truth. Even if the truth makes them feel angry, guilty, or sad.

    It is a partial truth you are telling. You aren’t telling the story of the people who have stopped eating meat, or the stories of the people, who, for example, have been ‘educated’ that they actually need to eat dairy to have calcium. Those people really believe that. You aren’t telling the stories about the laws which result in the farm treatments farmers use, the financial pressures, or the fact that the governments subside meat and dairy but not vegetables. Besides, the problem isn’t eating meat. Some people are genetically more suited to eating meat. The cruelty and distortion comes from commercial farming practices, and things on large scale. Large companies, large production. Whereas if you can empower people to grow, shop and produce locally, these problems will go away. No-one would do it in their backyard. The knowledge you are giving people isn’t empowering, in my opinion. You upset people without giving them a full solution. ‘Get angry’ is not a solution.

    And, as far as ‘the truth’ is concerned… What about say, the starving children in Africa? And the wars overseas? And the environmental destruction? And the polar bears? How come they aren’t part of this truth? What about the people who are being exploited? What about the… I could go on. My point is, the world is in a shit-storm, bad things are happening all over the place for reasons that are complex and difficult to understand. But I resent the finger-pointing and the over-simplification to the exclusion of all the people who are doing constructive things. I think by spreading the images, you perpetuate the violence. I do not agree with inciting anger! I feel if you empower people, if people are truly happy, and in touch with themselves and the planet, things would change. ‘As within, so without’.

    I have said enough here. I do want to ask you though: do you think that angry people can create a better world, truly? Or do you think that if people stay the same- sad, angry, guilty, and blaming, that once the pigs are out of the factory farming stalls, we will still be facing the exact same problems in a different form? Once the fishing stops, the fish are going to die from environmental pollution anyway. Everyone in the world could become vegan, and the mother polar bears will still starve because while they were feeding their baby cubs, all the ice melted. The communities in Africa still will not have drinking water, human babies will be dying of preventable disease, and the first world will be sitting at home with their laptops and wi-fi being angry about those ‘evil companies that abused pigs’ and congratulating themselves on being vegan; while eating processed food, nutritionally starving, and watching their loved ones die of cancer. I don’t have an answer, but I strongly feel ‘get angry’ is not it. Do you know what causes depression? Anger. Depressed people can’t change their own underpants, let alone the very fabric of society. The problems we are facing require thought and attention, as well as action. I am willing to take considered action. I just don’t think rubbing images of abused animals in peoples faces is the answer. People know something is very, very wrong in the world. They just don’t know what to do to make it better. I think telling people that being vegan is the answer does them a disservice. Being vegan isn’t going to save the bee populations, or the frogs. I think that a more holistic, compassionate, and systematic approach is requires to elicit societal change.

    You do your way, I do mine. If we have the same goal, it doesn’t matter. But let me ask you, would you do the same thing that you are saying if your family were in a slaughterhouse right now?

    We have the same goal in that I do not want animals to be abused. I also do not want people or the environment to be abused. I believe healthy people makes for a healthy world, and I do not understand how pictures of animal abuse help people to be healthier. (And being ‘vegan’ doesn’t make people healthier, necessarily, if they are eating processed foods). There is a bigger picture.

    Who are my family? Animals, trees, and all peoples. The earth is my family. My family IS in a slaughterhouse! We are all going to die, some far too soon. (Though, the question of whether or not humans are carnivorous is a different one. If a lion is eating a zebra, and you save that zebra, you starve the lion. Again, it is not humans eating meat that results in cruelty. It is mass production). If you want to stop cruelty, anger will not work. Compassionate right action will. In a society incapable of responsibilty or forgiveness, there will always be cruelty.

    I am not going to swallow what I believe to be true just so that you like me. My way of thinking may be foreign to you, and so you might not grasp what I am trying to say. You might look for other explanations, you might judge me as selfish or apathetic. Maybe give it some time, and re-read what I have written , then maybe you will see.

    Hello, world.

    Topics include…

    On water, desalination plants and how year 5 geography will tell you we caused the floods by cutting down trees

    On energy- why do we need so much anyway, and what would happen if it was free?

    On killing animals, I’m sad about the dolphins

    On processed food, and how sometimes I just want to not eat fucking Woolworths fucking apples

    In short, I intend to further explore the human arrogance of us thinking we know what anything is about, and how we are in actual fact no smarter than the ‘untouched’ tribes in Papua New Guinea and the Amazon, who we ought to have left the fuck alone.

    Just sayin’.