The Craziest Smear Against Jordan Peterson has to be by Forward.com asking if he was "enabling jew hatred."The article even used Petersons photo next to a Photo of [Really bad German Leader from WWII] which had to be retracted.But we also have a string of new outlets calling Peterson alt right or implying that the alt right likes him, they dont. Peterson regularly speaks out against the alt right and Identity Politics.So what is going on with this wave of smears against him?Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I didn't want to have to make another video about this, but the smears against Jordan Peterson have reached an extreme degree.
A few days ago, we saw an article asking whether or not Jordan Peterson was enabling Jew hatred.
And I gotta admit, when I saw this, I was staring at the screen dumbfounded, because this has to be the most egregious example of a smear against Peterson.
I made a video talking about this last week, about how the media seems to be ramping up their attacks against him.
Why is it that journalists can't spend 30 seconds doing a Google search to figure out exactly why Jordan Peterson is not alt-right, why the alt-right does not like him, and why would someone write a ridiculous article Asking whether or not Jordan Pearson is enabling Jew hatred.
Before we get started make sure you pop over to patreon.com forward slash Tim cast and click become a patron
There are many different tiers to choose from, most notably tier one at $10 per month you get access to behind the scenes photos and videos and bonus commentary when available.
So please consider supporting my work by becoming a patron today.
The first story I pulled up on archive.is, and this is from 4.com, and you can see, is Jordan Peterson enabling Jew hatred?
And here is a depiction of Hitler doing the Nazi salute, and Jordan Peterson.
It starts by saying, Jordan Peterson is a public intellectual adored by neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and conspiracy theorists.
The neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer called Peterson a Canadian psychology Part of why people on the far right like Peterson is because he is not afraid to talk about the Jews, and he has a lot of people to talk to.
Joseph Watson, a prominent conspiracy theorist for InfoWars, has tweeted,
Jordan Peterson for Canadian Prime Minister.
Part of why people on the far right like Peterson is because he is not afraid to talk about
the Jews, and he has a lot of people to talk to.
Peterson is on a 50-city tour of North America and Europe to promote his best-selling new
book Twelve Rules for Life, An Antidote to Chaos.
His YouTube channel has over a million subscribers.
He has answered questions about the global Jewish influence several times, in person and online.
In an April blog post, he attributed that alleged influence to Jewish intelligence, an old anti-Semitic dog whistle.
But here is the article as it reads now on Forward.com.
You can see this photo just shows Antifa and what appears to be a bunch of men in some kind of tactical gear.
I'm not exactly sure where this photo was taken.
And it says, Editor's Note, May 14th, 108 PM.
The original version of this article featured an illustration juxtaposing Jordan Peterson's image with that of Hitler.
In the eyes of many, the art equated Peterson and Hitler, which was not our intent.
We were trying to convey Peterson's intellectual interest in the phenomena of Hitler and the Holocaust.
We apologize for the error.
You may have seen this story, it was heavily criticized by so many people, simply because it wasn't actually criticizing Peterson's ideas, but falsely aligning him with neo-Nazis, who don't like him by the way, and white supremacists, who don't like him by the way, and somehow acting as though because of his conversations, and because some people who are racist might support him, That he might possibly be enabling Jew hatred, and the article doesn't even present a good argument as to why they would even ask that question.
But I'm gonna say again, I didn't want to do a video about this because I have already talked about the media smearing Jordan Peterson, and I can only make so many videos talking about Jordan Peterson being smeared by the media before it becomes totally redundant.
But one thing I do is I often criticize fake news, and we have just too much of it, because it wasn't just this story.
Once again, more news outlets are putting out totally BS information, sometimes for no reason, it would seem.
In a story from the Guardian, it says, The rise of Patreon, the website that makes Jordan Peterson
$80,000 a month.
In five years, online membership service Patreon has attracted 2 million patrons,
supporting 100,000 creators to the tune of $350 million, including nearly $1 million a year for right-wing
psychologist Jordan Peterson.
So what's the secret of its success?
In a story The Guardian is doing about Patreon, they just had to include that Jordan Peterson is right-wing and that he's making a lot of money.
There are many, many more people on Patreon who make substantially more than Jordan Peterson does.
If you're gonna write about Patreon and the success of the platform, why would you include one individual for no reason?
And it gets better when it says, "...all of which goes some way to explaining the surprise and jealousy that accompanied the news that Jordan B. Peterson, the alt-right's favorite psychologist and dispenser of such advice as Stand Up Straight, is making just under $1 million a year online thanks to the support of some 9,500 fans on the membership service Patreon."
So let's go over to Patreon.com and look at their top 20 creators, and figure out who really is making the most.
We have Philip DeFranco, we have Serialos, we have Chapo Traphouse, Ralph Garman.
The point is, Jordan Peterson isn't even on the list of the top 20.
So why, then, did The Guardian include Jordan Peterson in this story, when it's about Patreon, and...
Creators, and then use someone who's not even in the top 20 of Patreon as an example.
Then, you have to ask yourself, why did it call him the alt-right's favorite psychologist, which is factually incorrect?
Well, let's click the citation to see what he is quoting.
The citation leads to another Guardian story called How Dangerous is Jordan B. Peterson, the right-wing professor who hit a hornet's nest, and this one is from February.
The article only mentions alt-right once, where it says he is also adored by figures on the so-called alt-light, basically the alt-right without the Nazi call and the white ethnostate, including Mike Cernovich, Gavin McInnes, and Paul Joseph Watson.
The citation on The Guardian is actually a bit more accurate.
It says his fans are alt-light.
It mentions Gavin McGinnis, Paul Justin Watson, and it doesn't call those people alt-right.
And then here's a quick honorable mention.
This is the Washington Post, where some people are having a conversation about Jordan Peterson.
And someone asks, would you describe Peterson as alt-right?
And they said, ah yes, the alt-right, we'd have to get there eventually, but no.
But they do go on to say, he is beloved by many characters who I definitely call alt-right.
Gavin McInnes, Mike Cernovich, that sort of guy.
And he pals around with sort of alt-something provocateurs like Ben Shapiro.
Ben Shapiro is a conservative.
He's like a regular conservative.
He's not alt-right or alt-right.
But this Washington Post story is now saying Gavin McInnes and Cernovich are alt-right.
You know why?
Because no one has actually Google-searched what alt-right means.
But I have, and I'm gonna do you a favor.
I'm gonna tell you exactly what it means.
The SPLC, who you know I'm not a fan of for obvious reasons, has defined it as people whose core belief is that white identity is under attack by multicultural forces using political correctness, and social justice to undermine white people and their civilization.
Wikipedia says, It's a loosely connected and somewhat ill-defined grouping
of white supremacists, neo-confederates, neo-nazis, neo-fascists, and other far-right
fringe hate groups.
USA Today, quoting the Southern Poverty Law Center, says, The group's main focus is white identity and to preserve
Western civilization.
So I have to ask, why is it that so many people working in media
don't know what the definition of alt-right is?
Why is it that so many people haven't gone to any of these websites?
They didn't even look it up on Wikipedia.
Is it because they actually are just that ignorant and naive and bad at their jobs?
Or are they just trying to smear people?
Look, I gotta be honest, I get a lot of flack for this, but they really just don't know better.
I've spoken with journalists where I've asked them, why are you calling someone alt-right?
And they say that's what they think it means.
I have been told, yes, Gavin McInnes and Paul Joseph Watson are, in fact, alt-right, even though they reject white identitarianism.
It doesn't matter.
These people haven't actually looked at the definition given by the Associated Press, even.
In November of 2016, the Associated Press's Vice President for Standards gave a definitive source on writing about the alt-right.
He says, whenever alt-right is used in a story, be sure to include a definition, an offshoot of conservatism mixing racism, white nationalism and populism, or more simply, a white nationalist movement.
If the Guardian, if the Washington Post can't actually look to the Associated Press for a definition of the word, if they're not going to take Wikipedia, SPLC, the Anti-Defamation League, or USA Today, and not the Associated Press, then how are they defining words?
It seems like not only are people in the media trying to tell you what you believe and align people how they see fit, they're actually defining words however they think they should be defined, as opposed to what the word actually means.
There's an excellent website that I found with a relatively recent post, CheckYourFact.com, and it says, Fact Check is Jordan Peterson alt-right.
The verdict is false.
Peterson not only rejects identity politics, including the white nationalist underpinnings of the alt-right, he actively tries to steer his followers away from the political fringes.
Richard Spencer and other alt-right leaders have criticized Peterson for not confronting the racial issue.
You don't need me to go through this.
It's a simple fact check with a lot of sources where Jordan Peterson denounces the alt-right or speaks out against them, and then there are many criticisms from the alt-right and things like that.
I do want to make sure I point out before I wrap this up that Forward.com did publish a couple days later a story titled, No, Jordan Peterson is not an anti-Semite.
And in my opinion, this was likely due to the massive backlash the website received for using a photo of Hitler and Jordan Peterson standing next to each other and somehow trying to imply that Jordan Peterson was enabling Jew hatred.
But the question I have is, why do you think the media is ramping up their attacks against him?
This is just absolutely ridiculous.
You know, I can say that the Washington Post saying Gavin McInnes and people like that are alt-right is just ignorance, because they didn't actually look up the definition, sure.
But when someone writes an article asking whether or not Peterson is enabling Jew-hatred, that's insane.
And getting into the story on The Guardian, they were talking about Patreon!
The Guardian wrote an article about Patreon, but for some reason decided to include in that story that the alt-right loves Jordan Peterson.
Why?
What does that have to do with Patreon?
What does Jordan Peterson- Look, so Jordan Peterson's got a successful Patreon, sure.
But if you want to write about Patreon, why don't you write about the most successful Patreon accounts?
Like Philip DeFranco.
I guess we have two other factions in whatever this culture war is.
People that want to be emotionally satisfied, and people that want to be intellectually stimulated.
And when someone is looking for a better understanding of the world and they see these stories, they're going to get angry.
But when people are looking for emotional satisfaction, I'm sure there are many people who hate Peterson who saw that story and laughed about it and felt really good that someone took him down a peg.
More media attacks against Jordan Peterson.
So here we go!
We're gonna have the conversation again.
Why do you think they're doing it?
Many people mentioned in the last video that it's because they're scared, because he's sort of waking people up.
But maybe it's just because they want to make money.
And they know that I'll make a video about this, I'll talk about their brand, and it gives them brand recognition, brand value, clicks.
You write a story about Patreon, throw in Jordan Pearson is alt-right, and all of a sudden everybody's clicking it, everybody's sharing it.
Could that really be the reason behind all this?
Or is it just ideologues trying to shoehorn in any opportunity to smear someone they don't like?
Comment below and we'll keep the conversation going.
