4096 Jordan Peterson | 'Custodian of the Patriarchy' - Rebutted!
The New York Times recently published an incredibly dishonest and manipulative profile of Jordan Peterson titled "Custodian of the Patriarchy" by Nellie Bowles. Stefan Molyneux breaks down the predictable New York Times propaganda line-by-line, highlighting the tactics used to smear and discredit Jordan Peterson without addressing his arguments. Original Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.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
So every now and then you get this sort of platonic perfection of propaganda, and today's entry from the New York Times is a piece on Dr.
Jordan Peterson. And we're going to go through just a couple of the themes of it.
First of all, of course, you see the picture, right?
And the picture is as dour as humanly possible.
And they took, I'm sure, a bunch of pictures of the guy, but this is the one they chose, of course.
Now here, they start off with Jordan Peterson.
Now, The correct phrase is Dr.
Jordan Peterson, but the doctor is omitted.
Now, custodian of the patriarchy.
He says there's a crisis in masculinity.
Why won't women, all these wives and witches, just behave?
And that, of course, is not reporting.
Reporting is saying here's his ideas, here are some of his critics, here's how he lives, and letting the reader decide.
But here, of course... He's patriarchy, masculinity.
In other words, masculinity is somehow getting women to obey or behave and so on.
And this is written by Nellie Bowles.
And it just came out.
So I want to have a look at the language so that you can understand just how this stuff is constructed.
And here we say, Jordan Peterson.
He starts, Jordan Peterson fills huge lecture halls and tells his audiences there's no shame in looking backward to a model of how the world should be arranged.
Now, he's more for freedom than for an arranged world, but what I think is fascinating is...
Leftists are like allergic to the 1950s.
The moment that anybody says that there was anything decent about the 1950s, well, they're considered to be just horrible and horrendous.
I remember when I was in undergraduate, I was assigned a book called Homeward Bound about how terrible the 50s were for women.
Of course, nobody brings up the fact that since feminism, women have been getting unhappier and unhappier every single decade.
So, He casts his knowledge as ancient wisdom delivered through religious allegories and fairy tales which contain truth, he says, that modern society has forgotten.
So the way the propaganda works is whenever you disagree with someone, you quote their perspective and you say, he feels, he says, he believes, right?
Which distances the reader from what is being portrayed or asserted.
Now here it says, most of his ideas stem from a gnawing anxiety around gender.
So, to say that Jordan Peterson's arguments are provoked by annoying anxiety around gender, portrays an emotional motivation which undercuts the arguments that he's put forward, and that's really, really important.
Now again, we get here, look at this, Mr.
Peterson's world. Dude!
This guy is taught at Harvard.
He has a doctorate in psychology.
He is very well-versed, very well-experienced.
But you can't even give him The accurate courtesy of a D rather than an M. This should be Dr.
Peterson, but it's Mr.
Peterson's world, right? Mr., because if you're talking about the patriarchy and you're talking to a bunch of feminists, then the Mr.
becomes negative, whereas the doctor is positive.
So this, again, you're not giving him what he's actually justly earned, which is a doctor.
And remember I said that when you're portraying something you disagree with, you make it subjective to the person who's coming up with the argument.
So here it says, in Mr. Peterson's world, order is masculine, chaos is feminine.
And if an overdose of femininity is a new poison, Mr.
Peterson knows the cure, right?
An overdose of femininity I think a lot of people who criticize feminism are not criticizing the ideas.
They're not criticizing women's equality, certainly by any stretch of the imagination.
What they are criticizing is the fact that radical feminists, who are generally Marxists in comfortable shoes, use the power of the state to force women to be subjected to the rules of radical ideals under the cover of feminism.
It's not an overdose of femininity.
In fact, if you look back at the 50s, the traditional idea is that men were men and women were women, and there was femininity in the 50s.
So it's not an overdose of femininity.
It's not an overdose of feminism, which is simply an argument.
It's an overdose of hyper-regulation that is destroying men's lives, destroying families, stripping men of their assets, consigning them through things like massive amounts of alimony and so on, to living in cars and being thrown...
Occasionally into prison for non-payment.
It's like saying that national socialism is an overdose of community.
This is not the problem, it's the laws.
And this kind of article, and the reason why it's written...
You have to place this in context and understand that women as a whole are using the power of the state through the wedge issue of feminism.
They're using the power of the state to transfer literally trillions of dollars from men to women.
This is the basic issue that is occurring.
It's like saying that when the communists came in and stripped all the land from the kulaks condemning everyone to starvation that this was simply agrarian land reform or referring to Mao as a lot of leftists did as an agrarian reformer.
The problem is that through the redistributionist welfare state, through a wide variety of other income transfer mechanisms, not least of which is socialized medicine because women consume healthcare resources a lot more than men, there's a massive transfer using the coercive power of the state of trillions of dollars From men to women.
Men have been turned into livestock, into tax serfs, into tax livestock to feed a very well-armed female population that is using the power of the state to transfer all of this money.
That is the basis that is driving a lot of these conversations around gender.
It's not that people have a problem with women being empowered.
It's not that people have a problem with women being ambitious, or women doing well, or women making money.
The problem is the coercive power of the state, which is also the transfer of resources, not just through direct income redistribution schemes under the power of the state, but also If you look at things like affirmative action and equal pay for work of equal value, whatever that means, it is keeping men by force out of the workforce and giving men's jobs to women.
That is a displacement, and of course that is wrong.
It's immoral. There should be a free market, but...
Women through feminism have not aimed as much for a free market as having the government negotiate on their behalf, which is a problem because, well, the government doesn't negotiate.
The government uses force to compel people to obey, and that is the issue.
So this is why any pushback against male assertiveness must be Must be very strong.
Anytime men get together, anytime men talk about their issues, anytime men bring up things like the fact that men live a lot less long than women, right?
Women outlive men by quite a considerable period of time.
And when you're young, that may not seem that important, but when you get older, it kind of matters.
Men's suicide rates are higher.
Over 90% of workplace fatalities are men, and it's...
Men's health is not doing well.
Men's mental health is not doing well.
And anytime men get together to talk about this, well, it's like the Lord in the medieval times when the serfs all get together and he's not invited.
He needs to disrupt that.
He needs to stop that. But there can't be too obvious about this.
So the fact that Dr.
Peterson is talking about men's issues and is empowering men...
Well, this can't be allowed, given this massive gynocentric income and power redistribution using the power of the state.
So this is just really, really important to understand.
So, Mr. Peterson, 55, a University of Toronto psychology professor.
Okay, so my first question would be, if he's a psychology professor, why aren't you giving him the common courtesy and basic journalistic accuracy of calling him Dr.
Peterson, turned YouTube philosopher, turned mystical father figure?
And again, here...
Okay, let me just go back here for a sec, because this is important.
This is kind of a theme here. In, not Dr.
Mr. Peterson's world, remember you make it subjective, order is masculine, chaos is feminine.
Order is masculine, chaos is feminine.
Okay, so if I were...
I'm a female writer and I wished to prove that this was incorrect.
Then what I would do is rigorously analyze his arguments, look up his data, go to his source materials, understand his perspective, and then I would dismantle it according to here's the logical fallacies, here's where the data is contradicted by more recent data or better data or data with a larger sample size and so on.
Because I wouldn't just throw random aspersions and negatives and ad hominems and I wouldn't diminish him by calling him Mr.
Peterson rather than Dr. Peterson because that would be cheesy and emotionally manipulative and that would very much confirm his thesis that chaos is feminine because none of this is arguments, right?
So it always strikes me as interesting when female reporters Attempt to push back against the trope that women are too emotional by using manipulative non-arguments and not responding to reason and evidence and so on, but rather just trying to paint a negative portrait.
It really does confirm the very suspicion that is being portrayed in the article.
So the messages he delivers range from hoary self-help empowerment talk, clean your room, stand up straight, to the more retrograde and political.
A society run as a patriarchy makes sense and stems mostly from men's competence.
The notion of white privilege is a farce.
So the messages he delivers, not the arguments, not the evidence, not the historical record he brings to bear, not the mathematical record he brings to bear, as he talks about the Pareto principle quite a lot, which is that the square root of workers in a relatively free market produce half the value, which is why some people get rich and some don't. which is that the square root of workers in a Now, what's interesting...
Is that it's hoary self-help empowerment talk.
Clean your room, stand up straight.
I don't know. The left was always talking about think locally, act globally, start small, build up, and so on.
But now it's just hoary self-help empowerment talk.
And the notion of white privilege is a farce.
Well, because the way that Dr.
Peterson has analyzed it in general is that it's majority privilege.
It's not white privilege. Like if you go to Japan, funnily enough, there's a lot of Japanese privilege, but it's just majority privilege rather than that.
Now, a society run as a patriarchy makes sense and stems mostly from men's competence.
So here, what you would do if you wanted to rebuff this logically is you'd say, well, here's how men's competence has been exaggerated.
Here's how men's competence has been Falsely portrayed, and here's the data that shows it, but none of this.
Because you just have to state it in a negative way, and lo and behold, it is now a negative situation.
This is emotional programming, this is not arguments, and this is the kind of chaos I would assume that Dr.
Peterson sometimes talks about.
Now, I think what he's looking for more is freedom.
The free markets, free thought, free speech in particular, that's how he rose to prominence, was pushing back against enforced gender pronouns in 2016.
So he's looking for freedom.
And he would argue, or I think it's a reasonable argument to make, I don't want to speak for Dr. Peterson, but the reasonable argument would be to make that when you have a free market, given that men generally work harder, given that the higher bands of IQ are almost exclusively populated by men, and given that men aren't usually home, raising children, certainly given that the higher bands of IQ are almost exclusively populated by men, and given that men aren't usually home, raising children, certainly More and more mere material resources moving towards men.
So she goes on to say, he is the state-looking pedigreed voice for a group of culture warriors who are working diligently to undermine mainstream and liberal efforts to promote equality.
Promote equality. Well, how many single fathers get welfare payments versus how many single mothers?
The welfare state is, in general, the single mother state.
So where's all of this equality that is going on?
So they talk about his success.
Now, when they talk about success, what's interesting is they don't talk about the lives that he's helped.
They don't get quotes from people.
And there are tons out there about how Dr.
Peterson's work has really helped them, has helped improve their lives, improve their marriages.
They don't talk about, as Dr.
Peterson did with Cathy Newman, how he actually helps women negotiate better for jobs and thus helps them increase their wages and close the gender wage gap.
So it's not success in terms of his impact.
It's success in terms of his numbers, and this is designed to provoke class resentment, right?
His book, Charles Rules for Life, sold more than 1.1 million copies, makes more than $80,000 a month just on donations.
Hundreds of thousands of people taking his online personality tests and so on.
The media covers him relentlessly.
So that's success. It's just mysterious resources flowing towards Dr.
Peterson. And not the impact that he's had on people's lives, particularly young men's lives have been extraordinary.
And this is why he's considered so valuable.
This is why he makes his decent money and so on.
So then here you can see, we get a picture of Jordan Peterson on one of his venues.
And underneath, what do you see?
Well, you see a tattooed, mustachioed, and goateed policeman.
In shadows! And it says, security.
At Mr. Peterson's 12 Rules for Life tour event.
Ah, you see? Here's the association.
He's looking dour. Underneath is a tattooed policeman in darkness.
Security. Danger!
I don't know. Strange. So, then...
We, I guess those of us who would be naive, would hope for an analysis of his arguments.
But what do we get?
We get a quasi-novelistic portrait of a Dickens character, because two days gives him a view of his life.
Ah, he does not smile.
He does not smile!
He has a weathered, gaunt face and big, furrowed eyebrows.
I mean, this is, well, first of all, it's very bad creative writing.
I mean, this is bad fictional writing.
But what on earth do his eyebrows have to do with anything?
I mean, I hate to say, I mean, what on earth does his eyebrows have to do with anything?
Or is eyebrows hyperpatriarchal?
Is it a pair of Arkansas Ditch Caterpillar patriarchal eyebrows stapled to his face?
And this is great. He has written about dogs being closest in behavior to humans, but there is something extremely feline about him.
And this is what they call journalism.
There's something extremely feline about his eyebrows.
What on earth does that mean?
There's something.
I get a whiff of catness from him.
I have found his spirit animal, and therefore his arguments are rebutted.
Well, now that's order.
That's not chaos, right? And what's great about this is, you see, there's something extremely feline about him.
He always wears a suit, you know, just like cats do.
Oh, he's got a cat suit on.
He's Catwoman. I am a very serious person, he often says.
Ah. So then we get on to, see, you've already got his dower picture.
You've already called him a cat in a suit because journalism.
And then you've had a picture of him with a tattooed policeman.
And now we must associate, you know, it's countdown to incel, right?
Why men murder? Mr.
Peterson's home is a carefully curated house of horror.
So, yeah, he's very concerned about totalitarianism.
He's very concerned about the left's willingness to use violence to suppress dissent, which is why he's got a whole bunch of stuff from the Soviet Union.
A constant reminder, he says, of atrocities and oppression.
He wants to feel their imprisonment, though he lives here on a quiet residential street in Toronto and is quite free.
Now, imagine that this was a rabbi who was very concerned with and wrote a lot about the Holocaust.
Would a reporter dare to say something like...
The rabbi's home is a carefully curated house of horror because it has Nazi posters that help remind him of the horrors of the Nazis and what they inflicted upon the Jews.
Would they dare to say that this rabbi, he lives on a quiet residential street in Toronto, is quite free?
See, they want to make him look paranoid, right?
He's focusing on these horrors, although he himself is quite free.
That's the point. Relatively free.
Would kind of like to keep it that way.
Marxism is resurgent, Mr.
Peterson says, looking ashen and stricken.
Looking ashen and stricken.
So, if somebody says, Marxism is resurgent, the rational question would be, explain, please tell me more, what's your evidence, please, right?
But instead, you can just say, he looks ashen and stricken.
And can you imagine? If somebody concerned with the Holocaust says, Nazism is resurgent, says the rabbi, looking ashen and stricken.
Now, would somebody, would a reporter then dare to say to that rabbi, I say it seems unnecessarily stressful to live like this.
So, Marxism killed 100 million people in the 20th century alone.
Marxism is resurgent, and Dr.
Peterson makes a great case for this.
So, yes. Oh, it seems unnaturally stressful to live like this.
No argument. He looks ashen and stricken, and it just seems unnecessarily stressful.
What's the problem with Marxism being resurgent?
Well, here's the problem, my friend.
The problem is that once you've taken a public stance against Marxism, once you've taken a public stance against socialism, if Marxism wins, you're dead.
You understand? This is what happens.
And it can win quite quickly.
It wasn't like everybody expected it to win in 1917.
In Russia, or in Cambodia, or in China, or in North Korea, or in Cuba, or in, or in, or in, and the moment it wins, what happens?
What happens? Well, those who've taken...
Like, once you've... You're in for a penny, in for a pound.
Once you've taken a public stance against Marxism, you really have to fight it, because...
If it wins, you're toast.
And your family is toast. And that's it.
You've got to flee. You've got to run.
Or you get jailed.
You get imprisoned. You get thrown in a gulag.
Or you get shot and thrown in a ditch.
People say, oh, well, that could never happen here.
But the media freaks out about a bunch of Nazis gathering together as a subplot of a statue removal protest in Charlottesville.
And suddenly, Nazism is imminent.
And now everyone is far right.
Can you imagine? Somebody calls...
I mean, everybody gets called far-right these days who's not an out-and-out leftist.
And would any reporter go to someone complaining about the rise of the far-right and say, well, it's pretty stressful to imagine that Nazism is about to resurge.
There are tens of thousands of openly and avowed Marxist professors in American universities.
Do you find any Nazis there?
No. Tens of thousands of open and avowed Marxists indoctrinating children in Marxism.
No Nazis. Lots of Marxists.
So it may seem unnecessarily stressful to somebody who has no interest in the facts.
He tucks his legs under him as he talks, curled in a dark leather seat.
He has been patting around softly in socks.
He looks down while he talks and makes fleeting suspicious eye contact.
See, now you're just a mind reader.
You're a mind reader. You know exactly what's going on in Dr.
Peterson's hearts and minds. Just astounding.
Now, this is fantastic.
He dragged, so talking about the University of Toronto, he, Dr.
Peterson, dragged the school into controversy in 2016 by opposing a Canadian bill that he believed would compel him to use a student's preferred pronouns.
He dragged the school into controversy.
What does that mean? It means that the school is just kind of helpless.
Well, the school hired him. And he dragged the school opposing a Canadian bill that he believed.
See, you've got to make it subjective.
You can't refer to any facts.
You've got to read his mind.
You've got to describe his motivations.
You've got to adjective up his appearance.
You can't... Like, opposing a Canadian bill that he believed, he believed, would compel him to use a student's preferred pronouns.
I don't know. How about you look up the bill and find out if that is in fact what would have occurred?
And that way you don't have to say he believed.
You can find out if it is in fact true what he was resisting.
Terrible. Just terrible.
All right, so grow the hell up, accept some responsibility, live an honorable life.
Yeah, that is a very decent set of advice.
So why did he decide to engage in politics at all?
I actually didn't know this backstory and it's very interesting.
He says a couple years ago he had three clients in his private practice and I quote, pushed out of a state of mental health by left-wing bullies in their workplace.
I asked for an example and he sighs.
Ah, you see, I asked for an example and does she say and he provides one?
No, he sighs, which again makes him look negative and impatient and so on, right?
One patient had to be part of a long email chain over whether the term flip chart could be used in the workplace since the word flip is a pejorative for Filipino.
And that is, you know, again, people do get kind of impatient with this.
Female genital mutilation is on the rise in the West and is prevalent in many countries throughout the world.
You have women and men, of course, being sold in open slave markets after Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton destroyed Libya.
You have a wide variety of oppressions and so on that women are experiencing throughout the world from, I don't know, genuine patriarchies, often of the Islamic variety.
But now the word flip.
It's the big issue that needs to be addressed.
And yes, there are people who look at the genuine inequalities and oppressions around the world and then wonder why these privileged women are spurging out over the word flip, as in flipchart.
Just astounding, right?
I mean, yeah, there's something to complain about, right?
Here again, we have another picture.
It's dark. It's brooding.
It's foreboding. He's dimly lit, right?
I don't know. They can't post a delightful picture of him with Kermit the Frog, right?
So... Lobsters.
Lobsters, lobsters, lobsters.
This is fantastic. So he was radicalized, he said, because the radical left wants to eliminate hierarchies, which he says are the natural order of the world.
In his book, he illustrates this idea with the social behavior of lobsters.
So yeah, lobsters get lovely brain juice from dominating other lobsters, and they climb to the top, and this is all throughout nature.
And they're invertebrates with serotonin, right?
Okay, so this is one of his arguments, and he brought this up with one of the great, well, that's quite a segue, with Kathy Newman.
Okay, so there's an interesting argument.
You want to get rid of hierarchies, but hierarchies exist everywhere in nature, and serotonin is a motivation chemical for human beings, just as it is for lobsters.
So if you're going to say you can eliminate hierarchy, but it exists in lobsters, you have a challenge to overcome.
It's not a clincher, but it's a very good piece of marshaled evidence.
So then, the natural response would be, okay, here's my rebuttal.
Now, this is interesting too, because I'm no reporter, but at least not a former reporter in this sense.
Are you supposed to debate with your subjects, or are you supposed to present their ideas?
And then you can marshal other people's responses.
Okay, so Lobster Hierarchy has become a rallying cry for his fans.
They put images of the crustacean on t-shirts and mugs.
So, he's bringing up The idea that you can't eliminate hierarchies among human beings because it exists even among lobsters.
That's a funny, interesting, and fairly compelling piece of evidence.
So what does this woman do?
She says, well, it's on t-shirts and mugs.
Can you imagine?
Can you imagine? If I was a reporter, and let's say back in the day I was evaluating theory of relativity or something like that, and I said, well, Einstein wrote down E equals MC squared, and some people have put that on a t-shirt, because I'm reporting on science.
I'm sorry, I just, this is astonishing.
Ah, okay, so the people who hold their culture, this is what Dr.
Peterson says, the people who hold their culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don't want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence.
Might be. That is a cautious statement saying, let's explore the evidence.
And this is very similar to other arguments that are made, which is the left says every time there's a disparity, it's the result of bigotry, except the disparity where only leftists are hired in university, in Hollywood, on media, on television, and in a wide variety of plays.
That's because conservatives are incompetent, or people on the right are incompetent, and everyone's a Nazi.
So they say all disparities in outcome.
Whether it's racial or it is gender-based, all disparities in outcome are the result of racism and sexism.
And other people say, well, it might be more complicated than that.
Not to say that those factors don't exist, but it's not the complete and total answer.
Things are more complicated. So, yeah.
Men have more testosterone, they're more aggressive, they work longer, they work harder, and they have more capacity to concentrate, often because if they have great wives, the wives can take care of the household, raise the children, and work if they want, and so on, but it frees up men.
And men substantially inhabit the higher IQ ranges, which is where the Pareto principle really kicks in, at much higher levels of women.
It's 8-10 times more men than women at the higher levels of IQ, and at the very highest there are no women to speak of.
So... That's the way things work.
And this explains a lot.
And once you understand this, you don't have to have this whole complicated, everything's racist and everything's sexist.
Because if you aim to eliminate a difference that is biological, or that is beyond the reach of social policy, let's just say, if you aim to eliminate it, you're not going to eliminate it, which means you have to double down on your efforts, which is why leftism leads to totalitarianism.
Which is why leftism leads to a dictatorship because they're trying to scrub something out of existence which can't be scrubbed out of existence.
And they view anyone who speaks out against the fact that everything's socially constructed and everything's environmental, they view those people as evil to be destroyed either economically or from a career standpoint or politically or often physically when the leftists take power.
So they have a delusion. Which says all differences in group outcomes can be eliminated through the power of the state.
And one of the arguments to push back is say, look, if they're biological, if they're genetic, if they're beyond the reach of social policy in any way, you're simply going to have to escalate your use of violence until you destroy the society that you can't fix through the law.
So, he's given up a lot, he's put a lot of arguments forward, as Dr.
Peterson has, why there's some competence that groups more on the male side.
What does this woman say?
Interesting. It makes sense that a witch lives in a swamp.
Yeah, he says. Why?
It's a hard one.
So here's what you do if you disagree with someone but you don't want to marshal counter-evidence or counter-arguments to their evidence and arguments, is you simply ask the most odd question and then you edit the response to make the person look incoherent.
And that way everyone can throw the baby out with the bathwater, right?
And also, you know, everybody has verbal tics.
My big one is and-er.
And, you know, and sometimes, right, right, although I've been working on eliminating that one.
But, yeah, everyone has verbal tics.
And if you want to make somebody appear incoherent or foolish, what you do is you literally transcribe all of their verbal tics.
Uh, yeah, well, and, uh, but, hmm, huh, well, right, I mean, and that makes the whole thought thread fall apart.
And in a conversation, you may have more of those than in a pre-prepared lecture, because Dr.
Peterson doesn't do that much in pre-prepared lectures, doesn't do those verbal tics very much.
And so it's a hard one why witches live in a swamp.
And Dr. Peterson says, right, that's right.
You don't know. It's because those things hang together at a very deep level.
Right. Yeah. And it makes sense that an old king lives in a desiccated tower.
But witches don't exist.
They don't live in swamps, I say.
Now, this is some heavy-duty metaphysics.
And starting with metaphysics, the study of the nature of existence, is...
It's a very deep and difficult topic to broach in a newspaper article, and that's why.
If you start with metaphysics, you know, like, oh, this guy claims this is true, and I ask him to define the metaphysical and epistemological nature of truth, and then there's going to be a lot of, well, it's like this, and it's like, oh, it could be this, right?
And then you just, oh, this guy doesn't even know what truth is, right?
So, anyway. So, then there is a question of witches don't exist, and they don't live in swamps.
And he says, yeah, they do.
They do exist. They just don't exist in the way you think they exist.
Right? And yeah, so witches, what are they?
Well, they are old women.
And this isn't me, not Dr.
Peterson, right? But the witches, what are they?
They're old women who use magic to get their way and are often evil and negative and hostile.
They have spells and potions and so on that hurt or harm other people.
And they're old and they're ugly.
Of course, right? Because, you know, it's the maiden mother crone situation that a woman has a huge amount of power when she's young because of her sexual market value, because of her attractiveness.
And then when she gets older, she can't get what she wants from men Through being fertile and having fertility markers and so on, good hip to waist ratio, even features lustrous hair and so on, youth and fertility markers.
So a woman gets what she wants when she's younger because of her physical attractiveness to men, and then when she gets older, she becomes a nag.
So in other words, instead of the dangling of a positive, which is sexual access, she then dangles the withdrawal of a negative, which is nagging.
So the fact that witches are old and witches are ugly and witches use spells, which is a metaphor for manipulative language, to get their way is why we have this idea of witches.
Dragons is easy. Dragons is just, well, they found the bones of dinosaurs.
They didn't know what the hell they were, so they just came up with dragons, right?
So it's interesting, too, because a woman using...
Manipulative language to get her way is why I think we have this idea of witches and he says witches do exist when she says they don't but what she's doing here is she's trying to cast a negative spell a repulsion spell or a revulsion spell on Dr.
Peterson so she's using manipulative language to get her way and to harm someone and that's what witches do and she says oh they're not right so then remember we said countdown to incel right So she gives this fairly incomprehensible paragraph, which is probably part of a larger argument, but she just inscribes the least comprehensible part of it and says, well, I can't follow the guy.
Then there's no response to that.
And then we switch to Incel recently, she says, a young man named Alec Manassian drove through Toronto trying to kill people with his hand.
Right? So Incel and so on.
The group has evolved into a male supremacist movement.
Now this word supremacist is just used everywhere except when talking about Louis Farrakhan and his desire for a black ethnostate and then it doesn't exist and the fact that Obama was pictured with him and you've got congressmen who have been pictured with him if you're if you're concerned about ethnosupremacism shouldn't you be talking about that but no of course because white privilege right so Women should be treated as sexual objects with few rights.
Some believed in forced sexual redistribution in which a governing body would intervene in women's lives to force them into sexual relationships.
Well, that's terrible. It's horrible.
That is institutionalized rape, and it's absolutely horrifying.
And I don't know these arguments or how many people make them, but...
From a male perspective, so a woman's sexual access is part of her sexual market value and a significant part of her sexual market value.
A man's resources are a significant part of his sexual market value.
It's the old exchange between Donald Trump and Melania, which is a reporter asked Melania if she'd be with Donald Trump if he wasn't rich and she said would he be with me if I wasn't beautiful.
So you know that old Summertime song, your daddy's rich and your mama's good looking.
So a man's money, a man's resources are a key part of his sexual market value, just as a woman's youth, beauty and sexual access are a key part of her sexual market value.
It's not the only things, but it's a very, very core part of it.
So when the government swoops in and takes money from men and redistributes it to women, they're taking a core part of men's sexual market value away from men.
So forcing a man to give a woman resources, it's not morally identical, but it's not wildly dissimilar from forcing a woman to give a man kisses or whatever it is, right?
Force a woman on a date with him.
And so this is a way of helping women to understand what it's like to be a man and have the government swoop in, take huge amounts of resources from you and redistribute it to women, thus lowering your sexual market value as a man.
And so Trying to get women to understand this is a challenge.
Because they're like, well, that's not the same.
It's like, well, it doesn't feel the same because you're not a man.
And trying to get women to empathize with men sometimes can be a bit of a challenge, right?
So, violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr.
Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.
Okay. So, of course, young, unmarried men can...
They don't have...
Like, when a man gets married, his testosterone level goes down.
When he has children, his testosterone level goes down even further.
And the more time he spends with his wife and particularly with his children, the lower his testosterone ends up being in general.
And therefore, it's a way that nature tames man.
You need a lot of aggression out there to go and win the woman.
And then you need less aggression as a...
And even less aggression as a father, and that's a way in which marriage helps to tame men and turn their energy, their intellect, their creativity, their aggression to socially productive ends, such as protecting a wife and child.
So, yeah, this is just a reality, right?
So, regarding the Toronto Killer, Dr.
Peterson says he was angry at God because women were rejecting him.
The cure for that is enforced monogamy.
That is actually why monogamy exists.
Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this.
Enforced monogamy is to him simply a rational solution.
Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn't make either gender happy in the end.
Yeah. So the top 10-20% of men are chased by 80% of women, and...
This renders everyone unhappy in the long run.
In the short run, it's great for those men, but it's not great.
So, enforced monogamy. What is he talking about here?
Is he talking about a government agency that marries people at gunpoint?
No. He's talking about, culturally, enforced monogamy, which is where this no-fault divorce is really...
I mean, you can't get out of a cell phone contract without massive penalties, but you can break a lifelong contract that's the foundation of civilization with...
Just discontent and a couple of phone calls.
So is that a contract that has to be more socially enforced?
Can it be legally enforced?
Well, I don't know. But it is a contract and you sign stuff and you make a public vow.
For most people it is together until you die in better and worse in sickness and in health.
It's a public commitment of permanent eternal monogamy.
And it used to be that if you Broke up a family.
If you were a man, you slept with a woman.
It broke up your family. If you were a woman, you left a man who wasn't directly violent and abusive.
Nobody would have anything to do with you.
You would be ostracized. And I think that's what he's talking about.
Half the men fail, he says, meaning that they don't procreate.
And no one cares about the men who fail.
I laugh because it is absurd.
Half the men fail, he says, meaning that they don't procreate.
Yeah, as a father, it would have broken my heart to not have a child in this world.
And no one cares about the men who fail.
I laugh because it is absurd.
No, that's not why you laugh.
It's not why you laugh. You laugh because having empathy for men is tough for a lot of women.
I mean, this is why male privilege and the patriarch is why all this stuff is invented, so that women can exploit men without guilt.
In the same way that we have refused to love our children enough to save their society because we use children as Assets, right?
We use them as resources by which we can get giant government loans based upon the future tax receipts to be paid by our children.
They are collateral that we use for giant government loans.
And so we don't love our children enough to save their society.
Just look at what's happening with Europe and population replacement.
You're laughing about them, he says, giving me a disappointed look.
That's because you're female. And what?
That's it. Doesn't go on.
Doesn't go on. Helping out men one at a time.
He's a celebrity in the men's rights community, a loose collection of activists who feel men have been subjected or betrayed by social progress.
You see, now that's just not true.
It's a complete mischaracterization.
Because there is this idea that there's this progress that's really beneficial, and conservatives want to go back to a time where things were mean and bad and horrible, and they don't like giving up power, they don't like sharing power, and therefore they get angry, and they lash out, and they're enraged, and this is false.
How is it social progress for governments to be enormously in debt?
How is it social progress for educational standards to be collapsing?
How is it automatically social progress for Western governments to be plowed under by hundreds of trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities?
How is it social progress to make promises to half-working government employees that future generations will be forced to pay for their outlandish pensions?
Scott Peterson. The guy who refused to go inside and save the children from the shooting in the Florida school in Broward County, what is he getting, $8,700 now a month in his pension?
I mean, there's been progress, don't get me wrong for sure, but this idea that it's all progress and anybody who questions the increasing size and power of the state, how is it social progress for people in the West to lose their freedom of speech?
How is it social progress to be forced to use a gender pronoun?
How is it social progress to have your speech policed?
How is it social progress to be afraid to speak your mind because a howling mob of often violent leftists will descend upon your life and try to destroy you?
How is it social progress to be a conservative and be unable to speak on a college campus?
How is it social? It's not all progress.
And pushing back against some of these overreaches and some of these massive expansions of government power is very bloody reasonable.
But no, it's all progress and anybody who wants to go back to the 50s just loved racism or something like that, right?
And now, for reasons that pass understanding, we get a description of Jordan Peterson's bedroom.
And his bedspread.
Just astonishing. Oh, and his office is a mess, says this woman, right?
Why are we talking about his bedspread?
Jordan Peterson's bedspread is not an argument!
And then, I don't know, there's this betrayal of him as Two-Face for the Skype call.
He wears a sharp blazer and button-down, but he sits shoeless and cross-legged.
He knows where the frame cuts off.
It's all an act. You see, he's just made up.
Ah, the caller is a young white man.
See, you gotta say that he's white.
It's not relevant that he's white.
And it's interesting because social justice warriors, when you introduce race into a conversation, it's not about race or is it relevant to race, they say, why would you say he's a white man?
Well, they never say that.
Why would you say he's a black man?
Because they want to say that it's white men who like Jordan Peterson because racism, right?
Oh dear. So then there's, you know, complaints about women, people think marriages are oppressing, and he gets really, really angry.
And again, she quotes absolutely everything.
Dr. Peterson says, it's like, Jesus, get a hobby, for Christ's sake, you, you, right?
And just splutter, splutter, right?
No, no arguments.
No arguments. And then we get this weird thing where She says, What are you talking about?
Why are we talking about his mm-hmms?
Have we got to that point yet?
Yep, women are likely to prioritize their children over their work, especially conscientious and agreeable women.
When Mr. Peterson talks about good women, the sort a man would want to marry, he often uses these words, conscientious and agreeable.
Well, part of that is because women score higher in conscientiousness and agreeability in the Big Five personality traits.
But that would be quite a lot to look up, I suppose.
So now there's this idea that men just want a woman who's agreeable and doesn't speak back and so on.
I don't see a lot of feminists criticizing women.
Sharia law. So, yeah.
Excuse me if I'm finding women not to be pushing back against authority too much.
Male performance.
And so here's another way that you discredit someone's ideas is you profess yourself to be curious about those ideas.
You know, I'm open minded. I'm curious.
I really want to hear what people say.
And then what you do is you cheat because you find the least articulate.
You interview 10 or 20 people.
You find the least articulate person.
And then you print that person's quotes verbatim.
And that makes it sound like only inarticulate idiots are drawn to this person's ideas, which is a way of discrediting the ideas without having to examine the arguments or the evidence.
It is pretty sad.
Again, we're back on his clothing.
I mean, what is this, the Oscars? Dr.
Peterson, who are you wearing? The 1950s, patriarchy, and a caveman suit.
So, yeah, he's wearing a new three-piece suit, shiny and brown, with white lapels in it, with a decorative silver flourish.
It is evocative imagery from a hundred years ago.
That's the point. His speech, too, is from another era, stilted with old-timey phrases, a hypnotic rhythm.
Ah, lordy. Ah, lordy.
Prairie populism. Yeah, this is what happens when you rescue a father from the belly of the whale.
You rediscover your tradition.
And, um... Anyway, so they're talking up some woman, and they quote her in negative terms, talking about gays, right?
The people who have found their leader, right?
And again, this is how you disparage a movement, is you say that it's about some blind adherence to some leader rather than he's making arguments that resonate with people because they haven't heard them before, and they should, right?
Right? And then... She goes to one of his speeches.
And does she process, this woman, does she process any of the content of his speech?
Does she talk about his arguments, his evidence?
All the facts and data he brings to bear on his conclusions?
No. She talks about him as if she's deaf.
She says, he looks down as he walks, he paces, he pleads, he often sounds frustrated, like you've just said something absurd, and he's trying to correct you without raising his voice.
He speaks for over an hour without any notes.
He runs his hands over his face when it's all too much.
He cries often. Now, I don't know if that means cries out, but I assume it means weeps.
So again, any content here?
Nah, it's all form. It's all form.
We love you, a woman screams from the back of the house, blah, blah, blah.
This is another wedding you can take credit for, and so on.
Mr. Peterson's response is often, how's that working out for you, and so on.
So, yeah. Yeah.
So, then they talk about Lyon Arar, a theatre student in Montreal.
Hey, I was a theatre student in Montreal.
Mr. Peterson's discussion of gender brought him back to religion, and this is another one of the big dangers.
One of the big dangers for the leftists is that people go back to Christianity, and this is one of the reasons why they're relentlessly hostile to Christianity, and therefore Dr.
Peterson, who is a great friend to a large degree of Christianity, right?
So she talks to this 22-year-old.
And she quotes him.
I assume it's part of a larger, right?
So he says, it made sense in a primordial way when he breaks down Adam and Eve, the snake, and chaos.
So this is part of a larger conversation, but as I said, you find somebody who's not particularly articulate.
This guy may be, but the way she's quoting him out of context makes it sound like a random thought, right?
Nothing like that, right?
Nothing like that. And then there's a waiter, right?
The fact that McVicar is a hostile thing to the left.
It's probably just a complete coincidence, but Vicar, of course, being a religious term.
So he says, current politics are pushing for everyone to be the same, promoting women and minorities into unearned positions.
Well, no, it's not promoting.
They don't say hire women and minorities like it's a great idea.
And by the way, by minorities, they're not talking about East Asians or Jews.
They're talking about blacks and Hispanics and others for reasons I've talked about before.
So, this Andrew McVicker says it's forced diversity.
It's saying you must have X percent of ABC. Well, it is forced diversity.
Of course it is. I mean, you either get benefits or you get punished or other, you know, either there's a carrot and a stick with diversity.
So, sure. Of course.
So, if you push a particular group out of jobs and have them replaced basically at the point of a gun or at the point of a bribe through government set-asides or loans or contracts and so on, Yeah, you are going to hear a lot of outcries from the people who are being pushed out against their will, against the will of their employers, either through government bribes, which is deferred force, or direct force, which is laws promoting this stuff.
Sure. If there was a law passed tomorrow that said that you had to replace the faculty in arts...
With 50% conservatives and a whole bunch of Marxists and leftists and radicals would be fired, do you think they'd have something to say about it?
Of course they would. They'd be very angry and upset.
So, another picture.
So, what's interesting is she gives links to things she doesn't disagree with, but says this other guy, all studying theater.
I mean, why? First of all, why are you only speaking to young men who study theater?
I mean, that seems like a bit of a coincidence, given his general demographics.
So this guy says he was drawn to Mr.
Peterson after watching a prominent female journalist grill him.
How many times have I been in a situation where I have been set up to be the bad guy?
This guy asks, listening to Dr.
Peterson. Oh look, Dr.
Peterson made it in. I got a grasp of myself.
It's things I already knew, but now I know how to process the thought.
So again, there's probably a lot of intellectual content in what these people are saying to this reporter, but she doesn't quote any of that.
She just quotes either the tail ends or asides or things in the middle or half thoughts.
Again, just trying to discredit.
Again, there's no arguments have been put forward here.
There's not one shred of data in this article whatsoever.
Agreeing, Mr. Arar gave off the same guttural mm-hmm that Mr.
Peterson does. So this is what you do again.
If you don't like a movement, you portray somebody who is at the center of that movement as a cult of personality that people can't think for themselves, that they just parrot him without understanding, and so on, right?
The horror of women.
To Noreen Shamin, who works at the Association for Women's Rights and Development, which is based in Canada, Mr.
Peterson's philosophies are part of a bigger global backlash to gender equality progress.
See, if you're forcing people to hire women, that's not gender equality.
I mean, of course not, right? It's an old story, really, she said.
In a lot of nationalistic projects, women's bodies and sexualities become important sites of focus and control.
No evidence, no facts, no data, nothing.
It's just a story. And if you want to understand it from the male perspective, men's wallets and productivity become important sites of focus and control because social programs are disproportionately paid for by men and disproportionately consumed by women.
And so, yeah, men's wallets are important sites of focus and control.
Ah, here we go. Jordan's exposed something that's been festering for a long time.
Jordan's forced people to pay attention.
She got festering and forced.
Now, this is quotes from this guy who's co-founder of the men's rights organizations, and they're all here, right?
And do they give any of his arguments?
No. He made headlines when his group called the Anti-Man Spreading Subway Initiatives sexist.
Well, yeah.
If you have balls, you need to spread your legs sometimes.
You try stuffing a ferret down your pants all day and see if it gives you the jigaboo from time to time.
One of the group's main goals is waking the police up to female perpetrated domestic violence.
Yeah, it's a big deal.
It's a big deal.
Sometimes up to, sometimes even more, half of domestic violence is female on male.
It's a big, huge problem.
And yeah. There are now regular Jordan Peterson discussion groups, and then they're going to find somebody, and then they're going to speak the most negative thing about him.
He used to be a professional pickup artist, blah, blah, blah.
And so again, here's the curiosity, right?
So this guy says, campus censorship has been a problem when I was at university too.
I asked for an example.
And yeah, one law professor said something like, you young ladies should get married and start families.
And he got fired. And, yeah, what's wrong with telling young women to get married and start families?
There's nothing wrong with that.
There's strong arguments to be made for that.
It doesn't mean you don't have a career.
It's just that if you want to have kids, having them when you're younger, your fertility is high, the chance of birth defects is low, your energy is a lot higher.
Yeah, these are all very important arguments, but you get fired.
You get fired. Can you imagine getting fired for telling women that they should delay getting married but instead focus on their education and their career?
It would be incomprehensible.
So it's a very powerful and good example of how propaganda works.
There's no content, there's no facts, there's no evidence being marshaled.
It is all just a bunch of negative language and manipulation and so on and Sort of, I guess, witches sometimes do live in swamps.
Maybe that's where I'll end off here, but let me know what you think below.
