sustainability, nutrition, emotional and spiritual awareness

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: …


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.