Feb. 16, 2018 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
40:42
4001 Why do people find Jordan Peterson so convincing? | A Rebuttal
Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek recently wrote an article for The Independent titled "Why do people find Jordan Peterson so convincing? Because the left doesn't have its own house in order." Stefan Molyneux breaks down the latest in a long series of mainstream media articles attacking Dr. Jordan Peterson and separates the assertions and insults from the facts and arguments. Article: https://web.archive.org/save/http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jordan-peterson-clinical-psychologist-canada-popularity-convincing-why-left-wing-alt-right-cathy-a8208301.htmlYour support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Alright, let's build ourselves up from the ground up.
Before I get into this article, I just want to talk about sort of where I'm coming from because I think the contrast between, say, a sane and rational approach versus what I'm about to dissect might be worthwhile.
There are really only three questions in philosophy.
Number one, what is real?
number two what is true number three what is good right so the first is metaphysics the study of the nature of reality the second is epistemology the study of how we justly acquire knowledge and the third is ethics wherein we figure out what is universally preferable behavior what is the good for human beings to follow and yeah that's uh kind of it and you have if you want to be good at philosophy You have to do this cheese grating,
whirly blade brain scrub of everything you've been taught, which is to say everything you've been lied to about the nature of reality, about the nature of knowledge and the nature of truth and the nature of virtue.
You have to wipe the slate clean and build from the ground up.
How do you know? Compared to what?
And that has been my purpose since first getting into philosophy 35 years ago.
So you've got to start with nothing.
You start with a mental set as expansive and detailed as the blank ping pong ball of imminent glaciation behind me.
And so that's what you start with.
And if you want to disprove people, then you have to start with finding the factual errors, reading their research, reading the studies, crunching the numbers, dissecting their arguments, and so on.
That's the way philosophy works.
Now, just to give a gauge of how far we've come from basic Socrates and Aristotle, we have Slavov-Zizek, A thrice-married Marxist who I guess wrote something recently fairly critical of Dr.
Jordan Peterson.
So let's dive in.
I really, really want you to understand how propaganda superficially poses as philosophy.
And how when you have a particular goal, in this case the destruction of property rights, free association, free speech, and the free market, you can twist just about anything to suit your goals.
So, he starts off by writing, the wide popularity of Jordan Peterson, a once obscure Canadian clinical psychologist and university professor.
You always know that you're dealing with a hard leftist when you just can't help but start with an insult.
So, and I don't mind starting with insults as long as you back it up later.
A once obscure, not very well known, just not that important, not that well known.
A once obscure Canadian clinical psychologist and university professor who has become beloved of the alt-right.
The alt-reich.
Become beloved. So here what you want to do is you want to make sure that your audience knows exactly how you feel about the subject of your article within the first few syllables.
Beloved of the alt-right.
See? You don't deal with any of his arguments.
You don't deal with any of his evidence.
You don't take on any of his expertise and so on.
What you do is you say, he's popular among nasty people.
Ooh! I guess it's an ad hominem once removed.
It's ad hominem by proxy.
It's hearsay ad hominem.
So, you just want to make sure that anybody who's become beloved of the alt-right, whatever the alt-right means, nobody can really say, that just, you have to get those bona fides right up front.
And the writer goes on to say, is it proof that the liberal conservative silent majority finally found its voice?
So, so here we have a Philosopher, an intellectual, who's using the word proof without seeming to understand what the word proof means in any way, shape, or form.
You see, it's the liberal conservative silent majority finally found its voice.
BLEH! Word salad!
Eruption! Boom!
What does that mean?
Liberal conservative.
Uppy-downy.
Freddie Margarine. Butterhead.
Anyway. So generally what you do is you make sure that people on your side don't like who you're writing about and then as sure as Kathy Newman says, so what you're saying is as sure as the sun, the bloody red sun of communism rises the next morning in an irrational landscape,
What you do next, you see, is you take some outrageous statements with no context, no argument, no evidence, no subtlety, no explanation, no detail, no nothing!
You take outrageous statements!
With no context.
And that makes someone sound crazy.
You get that, right? So, lockstep, it's like watching a Chinese marching band and saying, I think I know where they're stepping next.
This is the next step. So, the writer goes on to say, Peterson, who has said that the idea of white privilege is a, quote, Marxist lie.
Well, since Marxism pivoted from Well, of course, Marxism tried to destroy the West through class antagonism, but that didn't work out well as people's standards of living rose.
Then they tried to do it through gender antagonism, which is kind of working well in lowering birth rates and causing divorces and massive amounts of social dislocation.
But they're also, of course, pivoting to race as their way of divide and conquer.
So, Peterson doesn't just say that it's a Marxist lie, it's kind of a racist lie.
It's racist propaganda designed to dehumanize whites, to turn whites into the other, so that they can be attacked and abused.
With a sense of moral superiority.
White is the new Kulak.
White is the new counter-revolutionary.
White is the new capitalist class.
White is the new bourgeois. Like whatever you can label people in order to make other people hate them and think that they're better off because they stole it and exploited it from everyone else.
Well, that's what you'll do as a Marxist.
So... The writer says, Ah, interesting.
So here you see there are two snippets.
Now, Jordan Peterson...
Is extraordinarily prolific.
I mean, the guy who wrote this article has written like 75 books.
But Jordan Peterson, I don't know how the man sleeps or when the man sleeps or even if he sleeps.
The man, he's a professor.
He's got private practice.
As a clinical psychologist, he writes books.
He does tours. He does speeches.
I mean, the man is a...
Well, he's a workhorse, and that's pretty impressive.
So there's a lot of output.
I mean, trying to sort of contain and encapsulate and understand Jordan Peterson's output, well, I guess it's like looking at the 24 volumes of Freud letters and going, man!
That guy liked to smoke cigars, defend pederasts, lose his jaw, and write a lot of letters.
It takes a long time to become good at that kind of stuff.
But you see, why bother? Why bother examining the subtlety and reason and evidence behind Jordan Peterson's arguments when you can just take little cherry-picked snippets that seem outrageous and then just spew them out and then just have people go, Whoa!
Electric third whale of intellectual shock!
Back away! Back away, baby!
And so he says that, you know, this Marxist lie of white privilege and radical or extreme feminists.
What was the phrase? Radical feminists don't speak about human rights because of their unconscious wish for brutal male domination.
It's fast becoming a mainstream commentator.
Hmm. Well, that's interesting.
Now, the relationship between, say, women and rape or sexual assault is a little bit more complicated than some people talk about.
You know, if you're going to say that women are just always appalled by any form of male domination and just think it's the worst thing ever conceivably in the history of the universe, you have a little problem.
You have a wee little problem.
Kind of sounds like a Paul Simon song, but it's not.
And a little problem you have is Fifty Shades of Grey.
Sorry, that's a little bit of a stumbling block.
Aren't you? Women are always appalled and horrified by any form of male domination.
Because Fifty Shades of Grey, I think, is about the best-selling book in the history of the world.
And it is radical porn for women.
So, this is a guy, Fifty Shades of Grey.
You know, apparently it's fine to beat women if you have abs in a helicopter.
Because that is the reality.
They love this crazy stuff.
And back in the day, Lady Chatterley's lover, I mean, that's pretty tame.
Back in the day you got Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights.
He's not a bit of a brute. Pretty tame.
Now you've got a guy who beats, whips and hurts and tortures a woman and she loves it because he's wealthy.
So you can buy yourself a submissive apparently these days.
But don't worry, she'll reform him with her feminine ways because that always works out so well.
I could make the asshole a nice guy, said every woman about to descend into a disaster of dragging down her friend-zoned emotional tampons with her.
So, Fifty Shades of Grey, kind of important.
If you're going to say that women have a very uncomplicated hate-hate relationship with any form of aggression and sexual domination by a man, you've got a bit of a problem.
I just wanted to sort of point out as well, you know, when it comes to this...
White privilege, male privilege stuff.
Just kind of important. If you want to look at the stats of the Titanic, Titanic went down.
And 72% of women survived on the Titanic.
50% of children survived.
And what percentage of men survived with all their massive white privilege?
Mostly white men, right?
What percentage of men survived on the Titanic?
Boy, it's got to be way higher than women because women were subjugated.
The men just elbowed them aside and jumped into the life raft because all this male privilege.
Well, no. In fact, 72% of women survived in the Titanic.
50% of children survived.
And of the men, 16% survived.
Yeah, that's... That doesn't seem like a lot of privilege to me.
Women and children first. Women were oppressed throughout human history.
Women and children first.
Now, in some cultures, yes.
But in Western cultures, where the enthusiastic participation of the woman is required to raise the children well, because white children develop relatively slowly, and not as slow as East Asian children, but you need the participation of women, which means that if you just brutalize, rape, and confine, and control them, and drop them in beekeeper outfits, they're not going to be that enthusiastic, and your children are going to do very well.
Female privilege is there in Western civilization.
Always has been. Just look at things like chivalry.
Things like there's no draft.
See, if men and women are just the same, then women should be drafted.
Yet they're not. See, that was the deal, right?
Men got the vote because men were subject to the draft.
Then women got the vote but weren't subject to the draft.
Let's work it out beautifully.
So, yeah. Privilege, male privilege, white privilege.
Just look at white Western male-dominated supposedly civilizations where men are subject to the draft, to being killed literally by the millions, to war, to...
Like 10 to 1 workplace deaths relative to women to massive amounts of extra suiciding to early deaths relative to women to contributing far more in taxes and women take out far more in taxes in general.
Crappy, dangerous jobs.
You name it.
But that's all kinds of privilege.
Do you know how privileged you have to be to think that men are privileged?
Just have a look at the family courts and tell me all about the male privilege.
With regards to... Women and their relationship to aggressive sex.
Now, please understand, fantasy is not the same as actually wanting it in real life.
I fully, fully understand that.
But it's a little more complicated than people think.
So here's a study. We'll put the link to it below.
And I quote, This study evaluated the rape fantasies of female undergraduates using a fantasy checklist that involved bald philosophers on the internet.
100%! No, wait, sorry, I may have misread that.
Let me try that again. Okay. This study evaluated the rape fantasies of female undergraduates using a fantasy checklist that reflected the legal definition of rape and a sexual fantasy log that included systematic prompts and self-ratings.
Results indicated... that sixty-two per cent of women have had a rape fantasy, which is somewhat higher than previous estimates.
For women who have had rape fantasies, the median frequency of these fantasies was about four times per year, with 14 per cent of participants reporting that they had rape fantasies at least once a week.
In contrast to previous research which suggested that rape fantasies were either entirely aversive or entirely erotic, right?
So erotic turns you off, aversive is like, ah, that's a goat having sex with a watermelon.
Please, I hope that's aversive to you.
I don't know what else would be.
Rape fantasies were found to exist on an erotic-aversive continuum.
Help us. With 9%, this is 9% of the women, completely aversive.
Like, just find rape, rape fantasies, rape, sexual eroticism.
Completely aversive. Like, oh, gross, get it away from me.
45% of women, see, that's a lot higher than 9.
Really? What is that, 5 times higher?
Yeah, it's 500%. 500% more women found...
Rape fantasy is completely erotic.
9% completely aversive, 45% completely erotic, and 46% both erotic and aversive.
That seems important.
And just a little pro tip for everyone out there, particularly the guys.
If the woman's into rape fantasies, don't marry her, man.
Do not marry her.
That is... Let's just say that that's a backhoe that's going to take quite a bit of work to sort out, to fix up.
And that's a lot higher than I was expecting.
Holy crap. Alright, the writer goes on to say, His advantages over the previous anti-LGBT plus star Milo Yiannopoulos are obvious.
Yiannopoulos was witty, fast-talking, full of jokes and sarcasms, and openly gay.
He resembled in many features the culture he was attacking.
Quick question. How far have we gotten down this article with not one fact, not one argument, not one rebuttal?
And this, my friends, is what they call philosophy these days.
The writer goes on. Peterson is his opposite.
He combines a, quote, common sense, end quote, approach.
Okay, sorry for the profanity.
Actually, no, I'll be nice.
I bled it all out in the King Jean Moon's sister.
Lick the bloody toes of oligarchical power love fest from the media.
Okay, like, just in general, screw your quote marks.
A quote mark is not an argument.
Oh, he's right. He's correct.
Because you can't, right?
You can look at this. Follow along with the article.
Follow the bouncing red ball of hell.
He combines a, quote, common sense, end quote approach.
See? Putting the words common sense in quotes is not an argument.
It's really not. Not even close.
But it's okay. He won't overuse his quotation marks.
Why? Because he has brackets.
No, not those ones. He has brackets.
Peterson, the writer says, is his opposite to Milo.
He combines a, quote, common sense approach and, open quote, the appearance of, close quote, cold scientific argumentation.
Ah, wouldn't that be great if I could just find arguments that I emotionally disagreed with and just put my sarcasm in brackets.
And then I just, see, it's quote common sense and bracket, the appearance of end bracket, cold scientific argumentation.
What is that? I can't tell you the facts, but I can't tell you their temperature because I'm a thinker.
Cold scientific argumentation?
Is that what they're calling facts these days?
The writer goes on, with a bitter rage at a threat to the liberal basics of our societies.
His stance is, enough is enough.
I cannot stand it anymore.
And this is where Kathy Newman comes in.
His stance is not what he said, not what he wrote, not his argument, not his facts, not his data, not his evidence, not his reasons.
His stance! is enough is enough I can't take it anymore so what you're saying is enough is enough you can't stay at it anymore ah and and bitter rage bitter rage bitter rage feels feels it's amazing to me how girly communists sometimes are well low t i suppose but yeah this bitter rage First of all,
I mean, this level of hostility and contempt and sarcasm and so on kind of strikes me like projection.
Just a little bit.
Because, you know, bitter rage?
Scalise got shot.
Rand Paul got attacked.
You've got Obama commissioning, knowing, commissioning a painter to paint him.
And the painter in the past has painted a lot of pictures of black women holding up the severed heads of white women and saying that it's about kill whitey.
But you know who's got bitter rage?
Jordan Peterson. Leftist attacking conservatives left, right, and center.
You've got... Don Jr.'s wife, Donald Trump Jr.'s wife, Vanessa, getting a packet of mysterious powdery white substance.
Terrified. Mother of five.
But you see, you know who has bitter rage?
The Canadian psychologist.
Yeah, bitter rage in Canada.
You know the old joke, hey, how do you get 500 Canadians out of a swimming pool?
You say, hey, would you mind getting out of the swimming pool?
Well, until Edmonton happened.
Anyway. So he goes on to say it is easy to discern the cracks in his advocacy of cold facts against quote political correctness.
Really? It's easy to discern the cracks?
Can you maybe discern a couple of cracks for me then, buddy?
Can you maybe type a few...
Oh, it's so easy to rebut this guy.
I could take him with one hand tied behind my back.
Oh, he's right over there. Oh, I could totally take this guy.
I mean, his arguments are ridiculous and silly and stupid.
He needs to poop your head. Can you tell me how he's wrong?
Oh, he's so wrong. I mean, only an idiot would need me to tell you.
Please tell me how he's wrong. Oh, come on.
Who would need me? Come on.
How long does this have to go on?
Alright, the writer goes on.
Not only is he, George Peterson, often relying on unverified theories.
Ooh, unverified.
See, this writer, very, very hostile and skeptical towards unverified theories.
Like... Creating a straw man called someone's stance.
Like calling someone full of bitter rage.
Like putting brackets and quotes around things and taking their cherry-picked arguments out of context with no sense of where they came from or what data supports them.
Boy, it would be really terrible to have unverified theories now, wouldn't it?
Because he hates these unverified theories.
You know what's not an unverified theory?
Your projection. So...
It's, of course, it's, it's, it's, um, he's a commie, so it's countdown to Nazism, right?
We get that. Okay. Bing, bong, bong, bong, bong.
Hitler! All right.
Not only is he often relying on unverified theories, but the big problem is the paranoic construct which he uses to interpret what he sees as facts.
So Jordan Peterson's reasoned, measured, data-driven arguments, well, they're just interpretations.
But me just saying quotes, that's not an interpretation at all.
Facts are facts, he likes to say, before going on to say that the idea that women were oppressed throughout history is an appalling theory and that a conceiver of gender as a social construct is, quote, as bad as claiming the world is flat, end quote.
Can I give us an argument at all?
No, it's not. You know it's not going to happen, right?
I call it a snarkument.
It's just snarky shit floating around.
Actual arguments. It's a snarkument.
It's not an argument at all.
It's kind of the opposite of an argument.
Pure, pure, undiluted.
P of Satan's sophistry.
Got to tell you. Right on. What are Jordan Peterson's arguments?
You care to deconstruct any of those?
Actually, no!
I found some quotes that seem outlandish!
To the normies. Alright.
So the writer goes on to say, Jacques Lacan.
Oh. You know you're going into crazy town when somebody starts talking about Jacques Lacan.
Postmodernism. There's no such thing as truth.
There's no such thing as good, evil, right and wrong.
But everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi.
So yeah, square that circle if you can.
Who goes on to say, Jacques Lacan wrote that even if what a jealous husband claims about his wife, that she sleeps around with other men, is all true, his jealousy is still pathological.
What? Why are we talking about this?
Okay. I know the guy was married three times.
Maybe he had, I don't know, cucktastic experiences in the betrothal rooms.
But what the hell are we talking about this for?
Also, can I mention something else?
The three words Jacques Lacan wrote...
You know what I'm going to say.
Say it with me, brothers and sisters.
It's not an argument. Jacques Lacan wrote that...
So?
I'm writing you wrong on a piece of toilet paper.
I win. Victory is mine.
I take on this hazardous job.
Do not try this at home so that you don't have to.
Even if what a jealous husband claims about his wife that she sleeps around with other men is true, his jealousy is still pathological.
The pathological element is the husband's need for jealousy is the only way to retain his dignity, identity even.
What? So, we're talking about husband and wife.
We assume that it's a marriage where they promise to be true to each other and to be monogamous.
So, she breaks her vow, screws other men, and destroys the marriage.
Okay, first of all, jealousy is before confirmation, right?
Jealousy is when you suspect.
So, even this doesn't make any sense.
Jealousy evaporates once you get confirmation.
Suspicion is different than proof.
Alleged is different than confessed.
You understand? So, once you've got proof, you're not just jealous.
Ah... See, Jordan Peterson having data and arguments and evidence and studies and so on.
Well, those are just cold facts.
But his proof is, Jacques Lacan wrote something!
Oh, God help us.
Solipsism 101. Oh, there's a subtle joke.
He goes on to say, along the same lines, one could say that even if most of the Nazis...
Oh! Are we here?
Oh, yes. It didn't take long, did it?
Along the same lines.
See, he's just said some guy wrote something, and now he's saying along the same lines.
We really are a long way from, well, the art of the argument.
We're a long way from the art of the argument.
Logical analysis. Theartoftheargument.com.
You should check out the books. Very good. He goes on to say, along the same lines, one could say that even if most of the Nazi claims about the Jews were true, they exploit Germans, they seduce German goals, and so on, which they are not, of course, their anti-Semitism would still be, and was, a pathological phenomenon because it represented the true reasons why the Nazis needed anti-Semitism in order to sustain their ideological position.
In the Nazi vision, their society is an organic whole of harmonious collaboration, so an external intruder is needed to account for divisions and antagonisms.
What are the Nazis doing here?
What are the Nazis doing in this?
I think it's something like Jordan Peterson uses facts.
A man who's upset that his wife is screwing around on him is pathological.
The Nazis were pathological and therefore Jordan Peterson is associated with Nazism.
Talk about a bridge to nowhere made out of absolutely nothing.
Really? And the theory is that the Nazis had a society of harmonious collaboration?
An organic whole of harmonious collaboration?
Nazis killed a lot of people in their own societies.
Mentally deficient people, some poor people, some gay people, intellectuals, gypsies, Jews.
Mentally ill people.
I... It was kind of a Hobbesian view of the world.
I don't know about this harmonious...
It's weird.
It seems like it's...
And the Nazi vision was one of harmonious collaboration?
I don't know. Anyway, it does not seem to...
Alright.
So, he goes on to say...
Let me go. So, an external intruder is needed to account for divisions and antagonisms.
The big... Here's the thing, right?
No, let's go back a little bit. So, the writer says the big problem about Jordan Peterson, the paranoid construct which he uses to interpret what he sees as facts.
See, he's paranoid. But Jordan Peterson uses facts...
Lacan wrote something, and Nazis!
And somehow Jordan Peterson is the paranoid one with a pathological need.
So, he goes on to say, the same holds true, sorry, the same holds for how today the anti-immigrant populists deal with the, quote, problem, end quote, of the refugees.
They approach it in the atmosphere of fear of the incoming struggle against the Islamification of Europe, and he puts that in quotes, like that just somehow dismisses all concerns or reality, like, say, the fact that there are 85 Sharia courts in England.
Just put in quotes.
Quotes? Easy peasy.
And they get caught in a series of obvious absurdities.
For them, refugees who flee terror are equalized with the terrorists they are escaping from.
I mean, this is not true.
It's not true that the refugees pouring into Europe are significantly fleeing terrorists.
In a recent UN study from 2016, less than 3% of the migrants who got to Italy were refugees.
Fewer than 3%.
I think it was 2.65%.
And this just tells me that this guy doesn't read any contrary facts.
It's lazy, it's boring.
Like, I'm reading this article, and, right, is he reading the UN thing and rebutting it?
Fantastic. Link me to where that happened, but I'm pretty sure it didn't.
Goes on to say, Oblivious to the obvious fact that while there are probably among the refugees also terrorists, rapists, criminals, and so on, the large majority are desperate people looking for a better life.
No. See, the majority are often fighting-age men, and the ones who claim to be child refugees, when their dental records are looked at, they're a lot older.
I mean, you see these kids in junior high school, kids riding full beards and stuff like that.
So the majority are fighting-age men.
So I guess the question is, if so few men survived on the Titanic, and the majority of...
The migrants coming to Europe are fighting-age men.
Why did the fighting-age men leave behind their children, their wives, their grandmothers, their aunts, their uncles, their elderly people?
Why did they leave all of those behind?
See, that would actually seem to me to be an indication of real male privilege.
Oh, the terrorists are coming.
It's terrible. They're going to burn people in cages and drown them in boiling water.
I'm off to go collect welfare in Germany.
Good luck, Granny! Now, this exception thing, that's interesting, right?
Here's a group. There's a subset of this group that is bad, but you can't possibly judge the whole group by the subset of the group.
Can't possibly judge the whole group by the subset of the group.
Now, how many whites are actually privileged in society?
How many whites are actually privileged?
Very few. But of course, you can just say white privilege for everyone.
How many men are actually rapists in society?
Very, very, very few.
But, of course, you can talk about rape culture.
You see, it's really, really bad to judge a majority by the actions of the minority when talking about refugees.
But when you're talking about white males, that rule goes right out the window.
Oh, it's so sad.
I mean, if this guy's written against white privilege, I assume he hasn't since he mocked Jordan Peterson's...
Well, didn't even quote Jordan Peterson's arguments about it.
And the thing is, too, you can't judge...
A group by the actions of a small subset.
That's the rule. Can't judge refugees, kind of like that, right?
However, this writer just said that Jordan Peterson's fans are all alt-right and compared them to Nazis.
That seems like a little bit of a collective judgment.
But again, asking for consistency from this stuff is, I don't know, like waiting for me to have a Chia Pet mohawk on my forehead.
Goes on to say, in other words, the cause of problems which are imminent to today's global capitalism is projected onto an external intruder.
Anti-immigrant racism and sexism is not dangerous because it lies.
It is at its most dangerous when its lie is presented in the form of a partial factual truth.
Is it? Is it not? I have no idea.
There's no facts. There's no data.
And he's really, really concerned about racism and sexism.
So I'm sure he's written strongly about how that is an issue in certain other cultures and religions around the world.
Nope! Just white males, because I really find I am at my morally most heroic.
When I pick on a subjugated people frightened of political correctness and the destruction of being labeled racist or sexist by the media, I really find that if I pick on Christians who have a turn-the-other-cheek mentality, forgive-and-love-your-enemies mentality, I'm so brave that I take on the people who I can almost certainly guarantee will never fight back.
Ooh! King Kong there.
King Kong. Goes on to say, You know that?
It's classic. It's like Boston, the band.
It's classic. It's just classic rock.
It's like, yes, close to the edge.
All right. He goes on to say, a hysteric tells the truth in the guise of a lie.
What it says is literally not true, but the lie expressed in a false form, an authentic complaint, while what an obsessional neurotic claims is literally true, but it's a truth which serves a lie.
What are you talking about?
Ah, I'm going to throw a hand puppet in a whirlpool and call it an argument.
There's no argument there. I quote from Lacan, I'm a Marxist, Freudian, I remotely psychologize people with no evidence.
I remotely psychologize entire groups of people, entire movements, with no evidence.
I cast a spell of projection and call myself a realist.
He goes on to say, populists and PC liberals resort to both strategies, don't you know?
Oh, he didn't say, don't you know?
He goes on to say, first they both resort to factual lies.
When they serve what populists perceive as the higher truth of their cause.
Factual lies. Okay, I don't know what factual lies are, because that's kind of like the Schwarzenegger film, True Lies.
I don't know what that means. I think he means lies about facts.
But here's the thing. If it's so easy to see how people lie about facts, pretend something is true when it's not true, why don't you give one simple piece of evidence?
Why don't you give one single...
God damn piece of evidence in this entire rebuttal.
Hmm. Projection, projection, projection.
I mean, why are we more than halfway through this article that got no factual rebuttals at all?
I mean, this is like you got a flat earth guy and it's like all you do is psychologize about his pathology and fear that his wife is going to leave him.
Anyway. He goes on to say, This is not, I mean, fundamentally something that's true on the right.
It goes all the way back to Plato.
He called it the noble lie.
The noble lie about why society should be divided into gold, silver, and bronze kinds of people.
It's called the noble lie.
And Saul Alinsky talks about this consistently.
It doesn't matter. The truth is just lie.
Whatever you want to get your way. But of course, he's on the left, so we're just going to pretend it's only religious fundamentalists who have this.
So the group that says lying is perfectly fine, and trust me, it's not just the Alinsky left that is the only group that says it's perfectly fine to lie to the out-group.
Lots of other groups, religious and otherwise in the world, perfectly fine with lying to the out-group.
So, the Christians who have "thou shalt not bear false witnesses," one of their core commandments is who's quoted as those who lie to achieve an end, while other groups who openly and clearly say it's perfectly fine to lie to get your way, they're not quoted at all as any part of this.
He goes on to say, "Common anti-immigrant populace shamelessly circulated non-verified stories about rapes and other crimes of the refugees in order to give credibility to their insight that refugees pose a threat to our way of life." All too often, PC liberals proceed in a similar way.
They pass in silence over actual differences in the ways of life between refugees and Europeans, since mentioning them may be seen to promote Eurocentricism.
Recall the Rotherham sex abuse scandal where the race of the perpetrators was downplayed in case anything in the case could be interpreted as racist.
Okay, first of all, I don't even know where to start, but this is a whole separate rant.
The Rotherham sex abuse scandal, that is the only thing that's correct.
There's nothing actually correct.
Rotherham sex abuse scandal.
Nothing is correct in that. First of all, it wasn't just Rotherham.
It was countless towns across England and across Great Britain.
This was not about sex.
It was about the torture and rape of children.
That is not a sex abuse scandal.
It was not abuse.
It was rape. It was threatening to set girls on fire, getting them addicted to drugs, kidnapping them, handing them around.
And it was not a scandal because there was confessions, there was eventual prosecution, and also it's not the race of the perpetrators that was downplayed.
It was the fact that it was Muslim Pakistani rape gangs.
The fact that they were Pakistani was less important.
And there are estimates that hundreds of thousands of little white British girls were raped by Pakistani Muslim rape gangs.
So don't...
Don't talk to me about a scandal.
Or it's sex abuse.
Don't even. Don't even.
Yeah, why people would be frightened of groups in society coming in who end up raping hundreds of thousands of their little girls and torturing them, threatening to set them on fire?
And the police won't do anything about it or didn't do anything about it for years and years and years?
Why people would be upset about that?
Are you kidding me? He goes on to say, The populist protest displaces onto the external enemy the authentic frustration and sense of loss,
while the PC left uses its true points, detecting sexism and racism in language and so on, to reassert its moral superiority and thus prevent true social change.
Again, it's just a random bunch of syllables.
There's no proof. And also, if he's going to say, well, Jordan Peterson's so beloved of the alt-right and associate them with Nazis and saying, well, the left and the right are kind of doing the same thing, then aren't the left also Nazis?
But that's not what...
You never make that comparison.
True social change?
You want true social change? You know what's true social change?
Demographic shift. Population replacement.
That is a true change.
You want more change than that?
I don't know. What do you want? Gravity to reverse itself?
I have no idea. He goes on to say, And this is why Peterson's outbursts have such an effect.
Outbursts. It's an outburst.
You don't have to analyze anything.
You can just apply a negative word to it.
Psychobabble is not an argument.
He goes on to say his crazy conspiracy theory about LGBT plus rights and hashtag me too as the final offshoots of the Marxist project to destroy the West is of course ridiculous.
Now that's what I call not an argument, not a proof, not reason, not rebuttal, not at all.
It is of course ridiculous.
Ridonkulous! Why?
Do you have any rebuttals?
He goes on to say, It is totally blind for the inner antagonisms and inconsistencies of the liberal project itself.
The tension between liberals who are ready to condone racist and sexist jokes on account of the freedom of speech and the PC regulators who want to censor them as an obstacle to the freedom and dignity of the victims of such jokes has nothing to do with the authentic left.
It goes on to say, Peterson addresses what many of us feel goes wrong in the PC universe of obsessive regulation.
The problem with him does not reside in his theories, but in the partial truths that sustain them, if the left is not able to address these limitations.
Of its own project. It is fighting a lost battle.
I don't know what the hell this guy's talking about.
I mean, you know, it's funny because for a lot of people, it's like, wow, that guy's really smart.
That's a lot of big words.
That's a lot of cool stuff.
I don't really get it, but I'm sure there's some deep crap down in there somewhere.
It's kind of muddy, kind of murky, but I'm sure there's a cathedral of fantastic stuff way down in that muddy lake.
Baffle gab. No, this is what passes for philosophy.
Right? These days. This guy's accredited.
He's well-quoted. He's published.
You know, this is what passes for philosophy.
And I've got to tell you, this is why what I do is so successful.
Because philosophy must serve the people.
Role model? Socrates.
Goes into the square, talks with people about their lives, how philosophy can improve it, takes donations as a result.
You can't do much better than to model yourself after one of the greatest philosophers of all time and the guy who really invented the discipline in many ways.
They were pre-Socratics, but the Socratic method is the basis of it.
So that's what he does.
This is what I do.
And if you want to support what I do, freedomainradio.com slash donate.
