sustainability, nutrition, emotional and spiritual awareness

Maps of meanings

MOM is not legit – critique using examples

Some bothersome 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.


JP & human design

JPs birth time is unknown. Possible charts have him as a 5/1 or a 6/2. Some of his supporters claim he is functioning as a heretic, however 12 rules of life seems to indicate he wants to be seen as a role model.

5am birthtime:

If he is a 5/1, he needs to have a solid foundation or he will be persecuted—which he seems to be.

Some people have said that Jordan is a 5/1 and is misrepresented because people project on him. My experience is that the 5/1 is not just projected on. It’s like Neptune. It also distorts and projects itself.

This may be a notself 5/1 function. From what I have seen it involves the inability to see the other clearly, with projected blame, finger pointing and accusations, and contradiction verging on hypocrisy.

Here is a list of Jordan Peterson projections.


Before 9pm as a 5/1, he has an undefined root. Along with the head this would create a ‘pressure sandwich’. My initial observation was that this was likely not the case as his schedule was so intense and he seemed to be coping, however as time went on he seems to coped less well and it seems to be causing quite a strain on him. So perhaps that it is the case.



Regarding 6th lines, Young men seek to emulate him as a role model.

Much of my writing here is devoted to demonstrating why he is not a good role model.


In human design terms JP has an open head centre, which no real ideas of its own and isn’t really certain of anything; he acknowledges that’s when he is lecturing he is having a conversation with one person and figuring it out as he goes (link speaking Russell brand- quote). This neans he is capable of channelling beautiful and insightful thoughts, the problem they’d they are filtered through defined ajna with its own theories, concepts and opinions. Someone so open-minded has none of their own consistent ideas to followed as an ideological or philosophical leader, but he does have consistent (conservative) feelings about the status quo and a women’s place and marxism and the importance of the bible.

He is also consistently living the ‘juxtaposition cross of possession’ regardless of birth time, making him controlling of those close to him.

His authority is emotional. He seems to honour this as far as he prefers to take time to respond to things.

Regardless of profile, he is a manifestor. The mark of a not self manifestor is anger. In Jordan’s case, there seems to be large amounts of suppressed rage, zero humour, and minimal peace. This suggests he is not operating correctly, and is not deconditoned. This is likely the case given the extent to which he operates from the mind.


JP & Ra agree:

1: hierarchy

1b: types are a Pareto distribution

2: fem & masc energy

JP diverges when he conflates having penis with yang energy. Yang manifestors are 8% and there’s no reason to expect anything other than 50/50 male and female sex. Which basically extends to him being wrong about the construction of men dominating women being naturalistic, as it suggests these hierarchies are not correct according to our energetics.


Thought experiment: how would JP react to HD?

1. He’d like the idea that he is god

2. He would not want to surrender the authority of his mind


Notions of power.

[2.36] ‘true power is not something that can be seized, true power comes in response to life, it comes from the energy of alignment with your authentic self’

JP only sees it as something to be seized like an aggressive lobster

[3.00] ‘When we see someone we aspire to be like, that person is living in a profoundly aligned state’.

I don’t think people aspire to JP because of his energetics. His energetics are aggressive and strained. I think it’s because they identify with his mind trip.

[3.48] The question we are all grappling with is ‘how do we live being true to ourselves’

JP doesn’t answer this question in a way which allows for differentiation. He is seemingly a proponent for the individual, as far as he is a liberal/capitalist, but the identity he advocates for is a homogenised one. He thinks it’s okay to make generic prescriptive rules. He doesn’t say ‘clean your room but only if your sacral says so’, he says ‘everyone ‘should’ ABC [although to be fair, in the sense that cleaning your room is metaphorical, the process of knowing yourself and deconditioning from the notself is advice that can be given. He doesn’t accept that the gene map for the gates can apply equally to both sexes- that a female generator can have the 34 of force with the cross of penetration making her strong, competent and disagreeable, and that a male can be a reflector who needs lots of rest, is easily overwhelmed by the sacral and base energy of those around him, and is essentially agreeable. JP advocates for pairbonding in a monogamous relationship as the foundation for happiness of all beings. This is not correct for many- a female quad split is not designed to reproduce and live in monogamy. A single definition can be just as happy and fulfilled living their whole life single. Because he doesn’t understand human design and differentiation, he generalises his reality in a way which creates homogenised prescriptions which will be deeply incorrect for some people.

Ra talking about the cross of planning coming to an end. Jordan can feel the end of the masculine order, the death of the Dog Star. He thinks he can blame humanities departments and crazy feminists and Marxist’s for it. He’s batshit crazy if he thinks that will stop it or change anything. He needs ‘the serenity to accept the things he cannot change, and the wisdom to know the difference’.

24 mins… ‘Olympus…. seven centred beings always argue. The notself mind loves through arguments Winners, losers, the whole strategic thing. The nine centred being is not here to judge anything that comes through anyone…. how are you going to judge uniqueness?’

Tell that to Jordan’s lobsters

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’.

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.

(Kimmy Schmidt tweet moments s04e03)
hyperbole that reveals the truth… it seems as if this critique is where the show has been headed all along. It was there from the start.
Females are still strong as hell.
– fights back in the war on men.”
-Masculinity is being criminalized in this country and I want something done did about it.”
– “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.”
– a nice guy overlooked by women in the same breath as admitting he gives women unwanted back massages
– Each boy is born with the key inside him to tame his own monster,”

Beyond this are MGTOW who believe ( ‘women are deceptive and will lie to get out of anything just because that’s their nature’ which accordingly to Wikipedia: called “The Four Levels of MGTOW.”

Level 0 – Situational Awareness: the member has “taken the red pill” and embraces the idea that gender equality is a lie and propaganda.
Level 1 – Rejection of Long-Term Relationships: the man rejects long-term relationships but will still partake in short-term relationships and sexual encounters.
Level 2 – Rejection of Short-Term Relationships: the member won’t participate in hook-ups or any form of short-term or sexual relationships.
Level 3 – Economic Disengagement: a member at this stage refuses to earn more money than is necessary for sustaining life. He views the government as tyrannical and is trying to actively drain money from the bureaucrats.
Level 4 – Societal Disengagement: this is as far as a mainstream MGTOW can go. Here the man refuses to interact with society.m

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.

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

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’.

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, readily 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.

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.’


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 religiosity and 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, 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 (quote required); 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.”

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.

‘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, 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. 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 (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 th 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.


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…..?