Jordan Peterson, darling of the alt right. Apparently that's what the media lies would have you believe. But if you took 30 seconds to do a quick google search you'd realize this narrative is a lie. Because not only is Jordan Peterson not alt right but he is also at odds with the alt right and has spoken out against them.So why is it then that the media is lying about Jordan Peterson?Is it ideologically driven. Could it be an attempt to prevent people from hearing his arguments? Or maybe it is just due to laziness.SUPPORT JOURNALISM. Become a patron athttp://www.patreon.com/TimcastSupport the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Over the past several weeks, the media attacks against Jordan Peterson have seemed to escalate.
There are numerous reports accusing Jordan Peterson of being alt-right, but some go beyond that, accusing him of actively aligning with fascist ideologies.
The stories are absolutely ridiculous.
And I've always wondered, why is it that media organizations think they can decide what your politics are for you?
Let me just say it right now.
It took me 30 seconds to find out that not only is Jordan Peterson not alt-right, he's actually at odds with the alt-right, has spoken out against them, and has even denied being a run-of-the-mill right-winger.
So why is it then that these media companies are trying to smear his name?
Before we get started, make sure you pop over to patreon.com forward slash timcast
and become a patron to help support my work.
There are many different tiers to choose from, most notably at tier one you get access to behind the scenes photos and videos when available and bonus commentary.
So if you want to help support my work, please become a patron today.
So if you don't know, Jordan Peterson is an academic.
He's a psychologist, and he has gained widespread notoriety.
He has a large fanbase, mostly of young men.
But that doesn't make him right-wing.
The first story I want to look at is something many people may have already seen, but it does get bad.
This one's from NBC News.
And in this clip, it says, Okay, first, that's not true.
It says, Dr. Jordan Peterson, a Canadian psychologist and academic, has attracted a fanbase among the alt-right through his writing and lectures.
That is also... I mean, you could technically say this part's true, because what constitutes a fanbase?
Is ten people a fanbase?
If there are people within the alt-right, three or four of them, and they create a little group, is that a fanbase?
You know, the question is, how long is a piece of string?
So, sure, technically you could say that's true, but I think it is entirely disingenuous.
unidentified
In a time of polarizing politics, Dr. Jordan Peterson refuses to be pigeonholed.
Diversity, inclusivity, equity, all of those things together, in particular, make up a very toxic group.
unidentified
He takes direct aim at the far left and its effects on young men, whom he says have been hurt by a society that overvalues political correctness and pushes them away from traditional male roles.
His new self-help book, 12 Rules for Life, is already a bestseller.
Hundreds of thousands subscribe to his online lectures, his speeches regularly attract protests, My favorite part of that clip is when they say he's attracted hundreds of thousands of subscribers and the number is literally in the millions.
My favorite part of that clip is when they say he's attracted hundreds of thousands of subscribers
and the number is literally in the millions.
It sounds to me like the reporter didn't even actually look at Jordan Peterson's YouTube page.
It sounds to me like whoever produced this piece didn't do a quick Google search
or even look at Jordan Peterson's Twitter or listen to what he had to say.
But let's move on to the more egregious example.
This one from the Daily Dot really blew my mind, because I thought... I mean, look, this story is so ridiculous, I almost thought it was a parody.
This one is, who is Jordan Peterson, the alt-right darling of YouTube?
It starts by saying, if you hang around intellectuals or academics long enough,
one of them will make the joke that they wish they were conservative because there was a lot more money in it.
Jordan Peterson is living proof of that.
The Koch brothers and the Heritage Foundation are eager to fund and promote the brightest minds conservatism has to offer.
They intend to use the free market language of the right.
There is a high demand for intellectuals who will defend conservative ideas, but there is a very low supply.
I just want to stop here, and when people bring up the Koch brothers and the Heritage Foundation, that to me is as absurd as screaming George Soros.
You know, I look at two groups of people, these two factions, the left screaming Koch, Heritage, the right screaming George Soros, and talking about how these secret billionaires are funding their political allies to influence and control the minds of the masses.
And you know what?
There's some truth to it, sure.
Special interests fund things that support them, but everyone does that.
And simply because there's a group of people who are rich who can fund it doesn't mean that there's a nefarious conspiracy, and this is just used, in my opinion, to taint the well, to scare people that the evil boogeymen billionaires are trying to manipulate them.
According to the Daily Dot, Jordan Peterson is famous because in the era of the resurgent alt-right, the loose collection of conservatives that align with white supremacists, there are few intellectuals willing to align themselves with the movement.
The alt-right is in need of intellectuals to justify their fascist worldview, and Peterson has been ready.
The Daily Dot goes on to then connect groups that aren't connected by saying,
taking into account Peterson's audience and particular appeal, this approach makes sense.
Whether you want to talk about the alt-right, Proud Boys, Pepe's, Gamers,
Peterson counts PewDiePie among his fans, or the economically anxious, there is a mass of
young underemployed white men who chaff at the modern liberal answers society provides.
Peterson offers them a role model, a mentor, and even a father figure to look up to and affirm their isolated and often prejudiced worldview.
Now whether or not intentional, it seems like they are in somewhat equating the alt-right, the Proud Boys, Pepe's?
I don't know what a Pepe's is.
Are they talking about anti-SJWs, Kekistani?
I've actually never heard the phrase Pepe's used in this kind of context.
Or gamers.
The article ends by saying, the only thing you can really learn from Jordan Peterson is that while being a conservative academic might be lucrative, it certainly isn't worth it.
I guess my question then is, who are they talking to about whether it's worth it or not?
If Jordan Peterson is standing up for his principles and what he thinks is right, it's worth it whether or not he makes money doing it.
I know a lot of people who make no money when they stand up for their principles.
They should do that.
And I respect anybody who is willing to defend their values and their principles, and Jordan Peterson seems to be very happy doing what he's doing regardless of the money.
Now, the next story from Vox isn't as bad, but this one's titled, And this is incorrect, because Jordan Peterson has denied being right-wing.
This article from Vox is similar to the other two, but they don't call him alt-right, they just call him right-wing, and that is incorrect.
So let's move on, and I want to bring up some points as to why Jordan Peterson is not alt-right, and why he is not right-wing.
This is probably my favorite example from the Sydney Morning Herald.
It says, right winger?
Not me, says alt-right darling Jordan Peterson.
This is actually a story about how Jordan Peterson is denying being a right winger, but they actually refer to him as an alt-right darling.
But let's look at actual statements from Jordan Peterson.
First, this relatively well-known statement from Jordan Peterson when asked about the alt-right.
Do I believe that there's any connection between leftist identity politics of past decades and the emergent white identity politics of the alt-right?
Yes, I think there's a direct causal connection.
It only stands to reason that if identity politics is going to be the acceptable mode of communication, that there are people Who are on the white side of the equation, let's say, who are going to decide that they're going to play exactly the same game, clearly, obviously, and horribly, you know, because I'm no fan of identity politics, but what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
But I would recommend that people don't do it, because, you know, the radical leftists and their damn identity politics, that's unbelievably pathological.
Decide to fight that by playing the same game.
You think, well, I'll play the same game and then I'll win.
It's like, you know, you won't because by playing the game you lose.
That's the thing about your political opponents is you don't play their damn game.
You play a different game.
And so, you know, what I've been trying to encourage people to do is instead of playing the collectivist game, and that would include alt-right identity politics, say, is to play the individualist game and to get their act together.
The best revenge, I would say, but you shouldn't be doing it for revenge, but the best revenge against the collectivist leftists is to live a stalwart, meaningful and high-quality individual life.
That's also the pathway that requires the most responsibility and sacrifice, and so I think is the most honorable and least self-deceptive.
And there it is, a clip where he actually tells people, if you play the identity politics game, you lose.
He's actually associating the alt-right with the far left, with identity politics, saying that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
He is being critical of them.
So to say that he is Alt-right is absolute fake news, and I think anybody who knows who Jordan Peterson is knows that's fake news.
To imply that he's somehow a darling of the alt-right is also a bit disingenuous when you realize the alt-right wants to debate his ideas.
They disagree with his ideas, especially when he tells them they're going to lose the game by playing this identity politics game.
But let's look at even a sort of lighter statement when Jordan Peterson denied even being a right-winger.
unidentified
What do you think are the things that people, and I'm especially thinking of your opponents, get wrong about you?
Their basic proposition is that, you know, first of all that I'm a right-winger of some sort, and that's just not the case.
The second is that I hold arbitrary prejudices of reprehensible types.
You know, those are whatever the flavor of the day is.
Apparently I hold all of them.
Interestingly enough, this clip is from the Sydney Morning Herald, and it's interesting that that's the same publication that called him the alt-right darling, even though in an interview he said, I'm no right winger.
And that's because they can't contend with the issues that I'm raising.
Interestingly enough, this clip is from the Sydney Morning Herald, and it's interesting
that that's the same publication that called him the alt-right darling, even though in
an interview he said, I'm no right winger.
Now I understand.
They might be saying that, sir, Jordan Peterson doesn't like the alt-right, but the alt-right
likes Jordan Peterson, and I think that is relatively disingenuous.
Esquire has a story called The Passion of Jordan Peterson.
It says, Or a dangerous anti-PC provocateur in tweed clothing.
This story is from just a few days ago, but interestingly enough, I'm hearing that fans of Jordan Peterson actually think this is a good take on Peterson.
And in the story, Peterson actually explains this attribution to the alt-right and Nazis, and the article reads, Peterson's fame on these subversive platforms is often used to paint him in ominous tones.
I have something in common with Nazis, he told me, in that I am opposed to the radical left.
And when you oppose the radical left, you end up being a part of a much larger group that includes Nazis in it.
But his refusal of the consolations of group identity also put him at odds with the alt-right.
The alt-righters would say, as they've said this to me directly, Peterson, you are wrong.
Identity politics is correct.
We just have to play to win.
I think that's a reprehensible attitude, but I understand exactly why you would come to that conclusion.
What I'm saying with my YouTube videos is okay.
There's a different way of playing the whole game.
Forget about the bloody group identity framework and concentrate on what you can do as an individual.
So sure, maybe you could technically say he's a darling of the alt-right, but I think it is known among people on the alt-right that they're critical of him.
As Peterson even said in this interview, they've told him he was wrong.
Richard Spencer has actually called him out for a debate on the issue.
And Jordan Peterson said that their attitudes are reprehensible.
So what more do you need?
I mentioned this a couple days ago, that we're in an era where it doesn't matter if you actually express your own political opinions because people will decide what your opinions are for you because of some deeper understanding they think they have of you, which is just not true.
Now let's talk about why they're smearing Jordan Peterson.
And the first and most obvious reason is Incompetence and laziness, right?
So, I don't want to act like I actually know the intentions or motives of these individuals, but there are a few things that I think might be correct.
So, hear me out.
For one, I think a lot of people who think Jordan Peterson is alright didn't do the work.
In the first story from NBC News, we can see that the guy mentions hundreds of thousands of people subscribing to his YouTube channel, but they actually show the millions on his channel.
Jordan Peterson is not getting hundreds of thousands, he's in the millions.
Or to be fair, he's actually at 1,092,961, so millions might be a little hyperbolic, but he has crossed the 1 millionth subscriber threshold.
But the next reason is probably malice.
And again, I don't want to act like I know the intention of all of these journalists.
I think the most likely reason is laziness and incompetence, but now I would assume that there is some malice, because look at the political strategy of labeling someone alt-right.
They do it to me, they do it to Jordan Peterson, they do it to Sargon of Akkad, they do it to a lot of people.
If someone is a liberal, and they're maybe uninitiated, they don't pay attention to politics a whole lot, they hear often in the media that the alt-right is a dangerous group you don't want to be a part of.
When these large media organizations like NBC or Vox or the Daily Dot accuse Peterson of either being alt-right or right-wing, then you're going to get people who are liberal who are going to make assumptions about who Peterson is, and you're going to put them at odds with Peterson before they've even heard an argument from him.
If you've ever learned anything about sales, right?
I used to do fundraising for nonprofits.
The first thing you need to have in order to actually convince someone of something is rapport.
That's actually what they call it.
The first step is rapport.
You can't approach someone as an adversary If you want to change their mind or have a dialectic.
In which case, when these media organizations, when these activists falsely label someone like Peterson as alt-right, they are making sure they destroy the first step towards understanding, and that is rapport.
If you approach a Jordan Peterson argument from a neutral point of view, you don't know a whole lot about him, you want to hear what he has to say, there's no defensive stature.
You're open to the idea.
But if you, as a liberal, are told he is aligned with fascists and white supremacists, you're going to be on the defensive and you're probably not going to listen to what he has to say.
This is... I don't... you know, I'm not a psychologist, I'm not necessarily an expert, but I... but this is what they train you on when you are doing sales, when you are working in fundraising, if you know anything about social engineering in the hacker community.
Rapport is so incredibly important that if you can convince someone that you're looking to be their friend and help them, They're more willing to listen to your advice.
They're more willing to listen to your argument.
So, beyond Jordan Peterson, why is it that so many activists, so many non-profit organizations and media companies will smear individuals?
Well, look at what Jordan Peterson is saying.
He is providing arguments against far-left ideology.
The first line of defense for them is to make sure he can't recruit.
And with over 1 million followers, he's doing a damn good job of it.
And that is a threat to anybody who is on the far left.
But let me know what you think in the comments below.
I know a lot of people on YouTube.
I mean, look, Jordan Peterson's got a million subscribers, so he has a lot of support here on YouTube.
Let me know what you think about all of this.
Why do you think they smear him?
Occam's razor would suggest a simple solution of just incompetence and laziness, but I think it would be naive or ignorant to assume that there aren't at least a few instances where this smearing is entirely ideologically driven.
So again, comment below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Twitter at TimCast.
Stay tuned.
New videos every day at 4 p.m.
Make sure you subscribe if you want to get those videos.
Thank you all so much for watching, and I will see you all tomorrow.
