Refutation of Jordan Peterson’s anti-identitarian ideology

10 replies
  1. Bernard
    Bernard says:

    JP knows his craft well enough to realise that at best it has a limited,clique appeal and that public opinion will soon seek other distractions, and move on. So I don’t blame him for making hay while the sun shines, after all, he knows who his real ‘paymasters’ are, and is playing his cards close to his chest while in the public eye.
    I at least trust him on most things, even if he doesn’t point the finger at the chief progenitors of Cultural Marxism afflicting the West.
    We all know……but he wont jeopardize his platform & income by speaking out.

  2. George F. Held
    George F. Held says:

    Great video. Peterson’s position in brief: identity politics is inherently abhorrent…for whites, but ok for everyone else, even for the Jews who practice it in the most extreme manner.

  3. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    @17:00 Whiteness Is Defined As (My Responses In Paranthesis).

    A socially and politically constructed behavior.
    (How are you defining behavior? How is behavior constructed socially and politically?).

    An ideology based on beliefs, values, behaviors, habits and attitudes
    (Since this is definition of ideology how does it differ from other ideologies?).

    The unequal distribution of power and privilege based on skin color
    (Since equality is an idea that came from Europe during the 18th century Enlightenment no other culture has ever even considered, let alone attempted to implement, equality. So what are you comparing it with?
    And, since its implementation has been limited to the Western world it has until very recently been an inter-racial battle of powerful Whites and powerless Whites. Committed social critics from Marx (1850) to Ortega (1930) were directing their attention toward Europeans and their geographical extensions. So, why the omission? And if this power and privilege exists everywhere else in the world, as it most certainly does, then it couldn’t possibly be the result of skin color! So, why confuse the issue by bringing it up in the first place?).

    It is a position of power where the power holder defines social categories and reality – the master narrator.
    (Hahaha! Sorry, couldn’t contain my laughter. These jokes just write themselves. This irony-free sentence is part of a presentation titled “Whiteness is DEFINED as”, and presented at the very power centers of our teaching-learning institutions – universities! The concept itself coming out of Harvard! Nietzsche once said that power makes people stupid. This entire presentation is proof, but especially the above sentence).

    I could go on but I’d never finish. Anyway, you get the idea.

    • Paul
      Paul says:

      I don’t get much out of this except that white people are supposed to be ashamed for some identity reason. If I saw him on a street soapbox , I’d say he is insane. His monologues are all hot air under high pressure. He reminds me of The Reverend Jim Jones of Jonestown and V.I. Lenin. He’s a string of absolutes tied together to appeal to mediocre undergraduate students and kids with Karl Marx’s haircuts.

  4. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    All of their explanations, without exception, are based on single variables, vague abstractions, glittering generalities, and absurd absolutes. None of which are examined, analyzed or criticized. Their requirement is not analysis, it’s automatica belief. So, intellectually their entire explanatory system functions not like gossip, but as gossip.

    In short, it’s language connected to more language. At no point does their language make contact with reality.

    Let that sink in.

  5. George Kocan
    George Kocan says:

    Peterson does not want “alt right” persons to share a forum with him or other like-minded persons. In this he joins with commies and their various friends in a call for censorship, the very thing which he seems to oppose when Marxist academics do it. Taken together they seem to know that they cannot win without censorship, that “alt right” arguments have appeal and probably cannot be refuted. I would like some interviewer to press him on this question, “Do you support or oppose censorship as a matter of principle?” In general, tribal societies have no problem in censorship. However, “white” tribal society does.

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      “Taken together they seem to know that they cannot win without censorship…” True. Very true.

      “…that “alt right” arguments have appeal and probably cannot be refuted.” Laughable. Very laughable.

      Any argument can be refuted.

      I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again, because it’s worth repeating. Whites who hitch their wagon to the Alt-Right are doomed.

      Nothing Right-wing will succeed. Nothing. It’s inextricably linked to the Left and has been for the last 250 years. Two errors don’t make one truth.

      The Left and Right will only produce yet more polarization. Polarization will produce stagnation and stangnation will produce cultural impoverishment. All of which we already have in abundance.

      Staying stuck in an 18th century Enlightenment ideology is a great betrayal of European culture. It’s high time we transcend the Right/Left paradigm and move into a larger freedom. It can be done. And when it is it’ll be the best thing that’s ever happened to us.

      • George Kocan
        George Kocan says:

        “Any argument can be refuted”? I suppose any argument can be doubted and argued against. I doubt that any argument can be found null and void. “Alt-right” refers to conservatives outside of the National Review/Bill Buckley orbit, such as the John Birch Society. The left-right dichotomy describes pretty well the political situation in the US, both the players and the ideologies involved.

  6. LavonDishon
    LavonDishon says:

    If we take JP at face value, he is committing a basic and obvious error. He seems to assume that a word can have only one meaning. You can have pride in your accomplishments and a different kind of pride in your heritage; it doesn’t follow that the latter is illegitimate.
    If everyone except whites subscribes to identity politics, it’s won’t be long before whites are pushed aside. If I care about the future of white people, why should it matter to me that JP does not?

Comments are closed.