Celebrity intellectual Jordan Peterson has written a blog post, “’On the So-Called ‘Jewish Question’,” the inner quotes indicating he doesn’t think this is a real issue—something that only “reactionary conspiracy theorists” would propose.  His blog includes a link to Nathan Cofnas’s criticism of The Culture of Critique. No links to my replies—which may provide a clue about his intellectual honesty.

Indeed, one must wonder about the seriousness of someone who thinks he can settle an issue that has gotten the attention of some of the most celebrated thinkers in Western history with an 1100-word blog post.

Peterson has become popular because of his courage and knowledge in opposing political correctness. He stands up for men and for individual responsibility. To his credit he achieved celebrity status via social media, not as a creature of the mainstream media. Much of his stature rests on his use of scientific data in his arguments.  I and many others certainly appreciate this approach; he is particularly cogent in discussing sex differences and gender politics. There is not enough of this in public discourse.

However, my confidence in Peterson’s trustworthiness was shaken by his shoddy treatment of the Jewish Question, including name-calling directed at my own work. This is part of his broader offensive against identitarians, people who defend their group interests. For Peterson there are only individual interests (a bit strange for someone who approves of evolutionary biology, a subdiscipline that encompasses kin selection theory and, for humans, cultural group selection). For Peterson to admit there is a Jewish Question would be to concede the reality of group interests—not only families but religions, ethnic groups, and nations.

In the West, failure to acknowledge group interests is suicidal for its traditional European-derived populations. As a result of the imposition of massive non-White immigration and multiculturalism by elites unresponsive to popular attitudes, the traditional populations of these societies are slated to become minorities in lands they have dominated for hundreds, and in the case of Europe, thousands of years. In the West, these migrants have typically established identitarian groups intent on pursuing their group interests and with increasing power to do so as the traditional European-derived populations (which uniquely produced individualist societies) dwindle. While I would love to live in a European-derived individualist society, under such circumstances it is suicidal to pursue an individualist strategy as things are now. And unless there is drastic change, it will only get worse in the future.

Those preaching an individualist ideology fly under the radar of political correctness because they eschew White identitarianism. But, if present trends continue, the individualist culture of the West will become a distant memory as these new peoples assume power in collaboration with White social justice warriors who are already championing the very policies that Peterson abhors. Already in the U.S. the non-White voting share of the Democrat Party is 44%, and this will only increase in coming years as the Congressionally approved yearly influx of more than one million continues. The faith of the individualist is that these newcomers will readily become good Westerners and that the ethnic politics that looms so large now will become a thing of the past—a fateful gamble that will end in disaster as politics becomes increasingly racialized (~60% of Whites vote Republican, and Whites account for 90% of GOP votes), achievement differences among the various groups become a potent source of political friction, and there are declines in social cohesion and willingness to contribute to public goods. These changes are disastrous for the traditional White majorities of the West. Read more

There is good reason why President Obama avoids using the word ‘genocide’ to describe the killing of one-and-a-half million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.

This is because if you scratch almost any methodical mass killing in modern times, you are almost certain to find Liberals and Leftists pulling the strings. So it was with the first major holocaust of the twentieth century, the massacre of the Armenians and other Christian minorities that started about one hundred years ago today.

This prolonged atrocity, which included countless acts of rape, torture, and even crucifixion, and which saw tens of thousands taken out into the Black Sea and drowned, while many more were marched out into the deserts to die of starvation and disease, was carried out by the Ottoman Empire. This superficial fact conjures up an image of Oriental despotism of the sort we normally associate with the likes of Tamerlane or even Ivan the Terrible.

In other words, the implicit image of these massacres that exists in the popular mind is of dark deeds carried out at the behest of an absolute monarch, embodying the forces of traditionalism, conservatism, and even ethnic nationalism. But nothing could be further from the truth. By the time of the genocide, the Ottoman Empire of popular imagination had ceased to exist. The Sultan of the Ottoman Empire at the time of the genocide was Mehmed V, a gentle and ineffectual man, who has been described as follows:

The very appearance of Mehmed V suggests nonentity. Small and bent, with sunken eyes and deeply lined face, an obesity savoring of disease, and a yellow, oily complexion, it certainly is not prepossessing. There is little or no intelligence in his countenance, and he never lost a haunted, frightening look, as if dreading to find an assassin lurking in some dark corner ready to strike and kill him. The Near East from Within

By 1913, he had been reduced to a mere figurehead and pawn by a series of coup d’états, which had placed the leaders of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) in absolute power. Read more

In American political life, any prospect for meaningful resistance to the Cultural Marixst machine put together by the Democrats and their supporters in the media and academia has all but dissipated.   The Republican Party, having been taken over by neocon elements who pushed this country into a senseless, protracted war costing thousands of American lives and over a trillion dollars, has lost all credibility.

Cementing itself as the irretrievably stupid party in a two-party system that pits the GOP against its demonstrably evil counterpart, the Republican leadership is even pushing for amnesty for illegal aliens, even though the demographic transformation of America engineered by Cultural Marxists is precisely the reason why the Republican party is destined to become a perennial minority party, if it does not disintegrate altogether. Despite outright opposition from its natural base, the Republican answer to the demographic crisis created by millions of Third World immigrants is … more Third World immigration. With the Republicans further unable to field even a mildly attractive candidate, George W. Bush will likely be the last Republican President, not unlike Millard Filmore, the last Whig President.

This is further compounded by the dearth of intellectually astute conservative voices. Given that the airwaves are filled with such vapid, shameless, and ultimately shallow voices like Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, so on and so forth, the prognosis of stopping the Cultural Marxist machine seems dire. Indeed, the GOP is quickly fragmenting into different sects: the Tea Party, Christian fundamentalists, big business wanting cheap labor, and libertarians whose radical laissez-faire, anything goes creed borders on anarchism.

The latter is perhaps most dangerous of all, because libertarians tug at American sentimentality about freedom and rugged individualism — values that must be placed secondary to the primary need of creating a culture in which the traditional American majority can thrive. Read more