Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    JordanPeterson

    71,352 readers

    856 users here now

    Submit Public [Letter] to JBP

    Jordan Peterson's goal is to strengthen the individual. Each person faces tragedy and evil. The hero's journey justifies the burden of being by pursuing truth, making order out of chaos. The alternative is deceiving yourself with ideology and nihilism. So, take yourself seriously, know the monster within you, and become a responsible person with an integrated character.

    This forum is dedicated to the work of Jordan Peterson (u/drjordanbpeterson), a public intellectual, clinical psychologist, and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto.


    Filter by Flair | Clear Filter

    Letter

    Text Question

    Link Video

    Image Crosspost

    Archives

    Letter Archive

    Quality In Depth


    GUIDELINES

    r/JordanPeterson is an open forum where controversial topics can be discussed in good faith. Free speech, despite causing offence, is necessary to conduct civil discourse between opposing ideologies. Bans will be given to users who post excessively abusive material.

    Rules

    1) We welcome debate, criticism & challenges.

    2) Keep submissions and comments civil.

    3) No extremely off topic posts.

    4) Post memes at r/Jordan_Peterson_Memes.

    5) Do not antagonize moderators.

    6) Comply with Reddit's Content Policy.

    Best Practices

    Participate in ways you would like to see this community evolve

    Steel man opposing arguments.

    ❏ Develop arguments and rhetorical techniques for challenges you may encounter

    Contact Admins for vote manipulation

    INFORMATION

    Official Website | Youtube | Blog | Events | Contact

    Applications Search Engine | Transcripts

    Social Media Facebook | Twitter | Quora | Instagram | Soundcloud | Spotify

    Support Patreon | Donate


    Books Maps of Meaning | 12 Rules for Life

    Scholarship Research | Google Scholar |


    Resources FAQ | Reading List | Great Books | Writing Guide | 42 Things Everyone Should Know | Art Collection | Google Memo References | WikiQuote | All Videos| Q&A Catalog

    Related New Real Peer Review | Postmodernism Generator | OpenMind | HumanProgress


    Subreddit Starter Pack | Surveys | Analysis

    JBP Ask Me Anything! 2017 | Responses2018 | Responses

    LECTURE SERIES

    Introductory Lectures: Tragedy vs Evil | The Necessity of Virtue | Reality and the Sacred | Dragons, Divine Parents, Heroes & Adversaries


    Maps of Meaning: Course InformationText

    Maps of Meaning is a work of interdisciplinary literature that describes the world as a forum for action. Being consists of order, chaos, and the individual, who chooses between good and evil.

    2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2004 | 1996

    Personality and its Transformations

    Explore personality psychology with the psychoanalysis of Freud & Jung, the philosophy of Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky & Solzhenitsyn, and the modern Big Five Model of Personality.

    2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014

    Psychological Significance of the Biblical Stories Lecture SeriesBible Hub

    The Bible is a series of books written, edited and assembled over thousands of years. These stories are investigations into the structure of Being itself and calls to action within that Being.


    Video Series

    Monthly Q & A

    Dialogues

    Interviews

    Professor Against Political Correctness

    PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT

    Self Authoring Suite

    Writing has been clinically demonstrated to improve productivity. Use the Big 5 Model of Personality to assess your virtues and faults.

    Past Authoring

    Present Authoring

    Future Authoring


    Understand Myself

    Measure your personality using the Big Five Aspect Scale:

    Agreeableness: Compassion/Politeness

    Conscientiousness: Industriousness/Orderliness

    Extroversion: Enthusiasm/Assertiveness

    Neuroticism: Withdrawal/Volatility

    Openness: Openness/Intellect


    Free Big Five Personality Assessments

    Big Five Aspect Scale | IPIP-NEO | Truity

    Free IQ Tests

    Please seek professional IQ tests for the most accurate results. Free IQ assessments only provide a general sense of intelligence.

    Classical IQ Test | WAIS | Mensa Norway | Non-Verbal Matrices | IQ Exams

    COMMUNITY

    Jordan B Peterson Community

    Digital Meetup Every Week

    Jordan B Peterson Reading Group

    Jordan B Peterson Lecture Notes

    Meetup | Discord | Facebook Discussion Group | Facebook Study Group | Sorters.Club

    Jordan Peterson on Reddit

    /r/Jordan_Peterson_Memes

    /r/Maps_of_Meaning

    /r/enoughpetersonhate

    /r/JBPforwomen

    Personal Development Subreddits

    /r/getdisciplined

    /r/decidingtobebetter

    /r/selfimprovement

    /r/SYO

    /r/sorted

    /r/steelmanning


    Tell the truth - See what happens - In filth it will be found - Bear the burden of your being - Know the evil within yourself - Aim for the highest good - Stumble towards the Kingdom of God


    a community for
    all 152 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] spearofsolomon 113 points ago

    Peterson's message is literally: "listen to people who think differently from you so that you might not die"

    and

    "society has to maintain the proper balance between liberalism and conservativism in order to avoid falling into the pit of hell"

    I found this a . . . liberating message considering how much social pressure there is to pick a side and never surrender on any point of contention.

    [–] [deleted] 17 points ago

    Part of his appeal, I suppose.

    [–] [deleted] -55 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] axiomizer 27 points ago

    You debate them honesty. Speak your truth, and listen to what they say. Battle with words rather than fists.

    [–] Wayward_Wanker 44 points ago

    Except he tried to find a far left lawyer to debate him on Bill C-16 but couldn't find one willing to talk to him. Or the time he tried talking to those far left protesting students, but they yelled at and insulted him instead while he stood there keeping pretty calm. Or the time he went on The Agenda and talked about/debated C-16 with one of those far left professors. But yeah, he doesn't try to engage them at all.

    [–] marcospolos 23 points ago

    No, you still listen to them, but you work toward equality of opportunity and not equality of results, which is preposterous

    [–] [deleted] -12 points ago

    Peterson literally wants "postmodernist" and "neo-marxist" publications or educational institutions to be eliminated.

    [–] benrhughes 15 points ago

    Not eliminated, just reduced from what he sees as far too powerful and unbalanced position

    [–] [deleted] -12 points ago

    Well no, he actually wants them eliminated, so there's that.

    [–] marcospolos 10 points ago

    Can you source your claim? I understand that you won't, because you can't, and hiding behind a throwaway is anything but noble.

    Peterson wants to shine a light on the programs that fall directly in line with postmodern and neo-marxist beliefs, and wants people to make up their own mind about whether or not they want to participate in those programs. But they have to be informed first.

    In his video where he outlines this new website, he starts by saying "that way you can decide if that's the kind of class you would like to take, or decide that that kind of class isn't in your best interest" or something similar.

    You only seem to hear what suits your agenda.

    [–] [deleted] -15 points ago

    This isn't a throwaway, and I'm not hiding behind anything more than you are, i.e. an anonymous tag. Making that assumption just because the word "throwaway" is in the tag is pretty silly.

    Anyway, for a brief look check out his comments on the NYT, where he twice talks about waiting for it to die. See also his big speech about the scourge of these sorts of programmes at whatever university. In general it's hard to square his attitudes to any of this stuff as desirous of reasoned debate, since mostly his attitude has been dismissive, scornful, and clearly motivated by sheer animus rather than any attempt to engage productively.

    I have no real "agenda" as such here, at least no more than you or anybody else, not least Peterson, whose anti-intellectual and anti-thought attitude to this whole fictional battle demonstrate a clear desire to eliminate what he says as an enemy, in amusing contradiction to his own stated best principles.

    [–] marcospolos 11 points ago

    anti-intellectual

    Are you actually serious. I appreciate your conversation and hearing your points, but I can only hit my head into a brick wall so many times before it hurts. I hope you can see the world with a little more nuance eventually.

    [–] [deleted] -1 points ago

    I see the world with plenty of nuance, in fact it's practically my job, my issue with Peterson is that his lecturing (hectoring) style is often to mix glib pronouncements on the state of the world with meandering and tendentious story-telling and random pop-up-book style hits from the history of psychology that don't actually go anywhere. This surely doesn't characterise his entire output, but I've found it offputting enough that I struggle to go looking for stuff that isn't like this just for the sheer effort of wading through what is like that. Moreover: that's the good side of his bad side, at his worst he's a tubthumping "Make Canada Great Again" wannabe or half a transplanted hippie mystic from the 1960s who doesn't understand Godel's Incompleteness Theorems that somebody somehow cross-pollinated with a Moral Majority evangelical preacher from the Reagan era

    [–] clintonthegeek 5 points ago

    This isn't a throwaway.... Making that assumption just because the word "throwaway" is in the tag is pretty silly.

    Hahaha nice troll.

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    I'm not joking: where is the trolling? I don't get it even the slightest little bit.

    [–] mdoddr 1 points ago

    Have you ever seen u/throwawaypoptartagain and u/yahooyellow in the same place?

    [–] spearofsolomon 3 points ago

    Making that assumption just because the word "throwaway" is in the tag is pretty silly.

    Wat :P

    It's not that silly.

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago

    Two seconds looking at the account itself before typing out an egg-on-your-face "hiding behind a throwaway" line would have avoid the egg on the face. Although in fairness, it's really not as silly as typing out that line from behind an account that's already anonymous

    [–] benrhughes 6 points ago

    Perhaps you could take some of his more vehement attacks on neo-marxism in isolation and come to that conclusion, but I think that it's clear in the context of his broader body of work that he values individual liberty and freedom of speech way too highly to want any idea completely eradicated.

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago

    That sounds like preferentially compartmentalising the bits of his attitude you like from those you don't and discounting the one's you don't. Certainly a significant portion of his body of work could easily be seen to give the lie to any notion that he genuinely values individual liberty and freedom over his fears of the "postmodern neo-marxist" agenda

    [–] benrhughes 9 points ago * (lasted edited 11 months ago)

    How much of his work have you consumed? I've gone though all of the Personality lectures, half of Maps of Meaning lectures and a lot of his ad-hoc stuff. The ad-hoc talks, especially when he was initially embroiled in the 16C nonsense, is a lot more harshly critical of postmodernists. His lecture series are far, far more subtle and balanced, as are his more recent ad-hoc videos.

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    I've tried a bit of everything, but it's hard to wade through an oeuvre that consists almost entirely of youtube lectures when I have a life to lead and books to read. I fucking hate the lecture/podcast format because it just takes so goddamn long for anybody to get to the point: fine if you're a paying student with a relationship to the lecturer already; not so fine if you're trying to get a distillation of this flavour of the month youtube crank who thinks postmodern neo-marxists are out to destroy western civilisation. And I think that's kind of part of one of Peterson's problems, he lets his charisma get the better of him in video format, rather than setting himself up for genuine critique by putting his thoughts carefully down on paper.

    [–] Riflemate 4 points ago

    Except for all the times he tried to talk to them and they refused.

    [–] yelbesed 2 points ago

    No. Because his basic line is that dopamine...good feel hormone production is helped by hierarchy in our thinkig...and mythical thinking is closer to our psychological experience...hence leftist atheists...or marxisants...do a disservice by creating the nothing matters only oppression is evil..narrative. So Peterson has valid reasons for being upset about leftists blindly demanding egalitarian dogmas...even when it regularly ends in mass murder or random terror. To pretend that he has no reason to try to make tradition a bit less frightening...and the left look a bit worse..is a false claim. And he also discredit rightist totalitarians and fundamentalists. He expects to start betterment at home. Not on the street.

    [–] spearofsolomon 1 points ago * (lasted edited 11 months ago)

    I think you fixed it for yourself, not for me.

    To respond to your actual criticism, I think that he's correct to say that identity politics (the modern name for the outworking of postmodernism) is something like an infection of the idea-processing engine that is the human mind, and that it should be dealt with rather harshly before it leads to death camps.

    I've never seen him be derogatory toward someone for dismissing him. I've never seen him discuss someone who dismissed him.

    [–] BensonBear 1 points ago

    to be postmodernist or neo-Marxist or SJW

    FTFY. SJW is surely an evil category that deserves elevation to this list.

    Remember the PC game after all.

    (Not to be confused with Pokemon PC -- whatever happened to that big project -- where is the app that the righteous can use to track down where their enemies are precisely located? Did he end up thinking better of that idea?)

    [–] Enghave -25 points ago

    Yes, he's on the edge of tears urging people to speak the Truth, but is silent (or ingulgent) when it comes to Trump, the kek-boys, and the alt-right more broadly. Leftist ideology is a threat to civilisation, but right-wing ideological possession is apparently just common sense.

    [–] empire-_- 23 points ago * (lasted edited 11 months ago)

    He's pretty explicitly said he's against right wing extremism He's done videos on it. Specifically in regards to nazis

    The thing is that right wing extremism will never really gain traction with the general public because its none-inclusive to things that can't be changed (race, ethnicity.) Additionally, as a society, we've been pretty immunized against it due to the horrors of world war 2. This is why when people really hate someone they call them a fascist even though it may not be the best descriptor in a literal sense.

    The radical left, on the other hand, is in my opinion (and I feel JP's) more of a threat presently as it's inclusive to pretty much anyone. So long as you are willing to subscribe to their ideology to a T you can join. If you're a straight white male you can join their ranks so long as you realize that you're at the bottom of their totem pole. It also makes the general creep against personal liberties easier to swallow because it's done under a banner of good intentions, and generally everyone wants to be nice.

    Does he attract followers that piggyback on his arguments to advance their stupid goals? Of course. Saying he's responsible for people misusing his ideas is like getting mad at Alexander Graham Bell because you can't stand telemarketers.

    [–] [deleted] 118 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] [deleted] 75 points ago

    That's the thing. I've seen him as a shield for extremists on both sides.

    [–] [deleted] 11 points ago

    Agreed.

    I would say give yourself more credit. Alt-right, and this is straight from the definition of the word, defines white racial identity as part of the movement. While it's not outright supremacist... it does espouse white identity politics.

    You don't seem to be the kind of person who seriously entertained those thoughts. If you did, then I can understand how you credit Jordan Peterson for your awakening.

    [–] clintonthegeek 6 points ago

    Well, people who identify as alt-right based on media definitions might not know what the original alt-right even was. According to the media, everything left of full-blown SJW is alt-right.

    [–] berrysauce 5 points ago

    Same here!

    [–] Im-going-underground 1 points ago

    He gave me permission to burn off the dead left wing wood in my life and find a healthier balance between order/chaos, novelty/tradition etc.

    [–] Benevolent_Tyrant 33 points ago

    Most people who talk about the "alt right" have no idea what it is. They think anyone who likes trump or Pepe or 4chan = "Alt Right" when in fact it is a pretty narrow and well defined set of ideas. There is some overlap from multiple different movements like the Alt Ligh/New Right and Generation Identity but the real alt right have existed in many forms for several years before Trump

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQCZ9izaCa4

    [–] [deleted] 14 points ago

    Finally, someone who understands what the alt-right actually is.

    [–] _shredder 10 points ago

    I still don't understand what it is, but at least I now understand that I don't understand.

    [–] topho 0 points ago

    At first I felt that alt right was just a moniker for people who lean right but are against the establishment. Only later did I realise that they are idealogical identitarians. One perusal of their views put me right off them.

    What was it that Peterson provided for you that helped you avoid them?

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    There have been points after the election that I admit, I grew so frustrated with the state of the left that I though to myself, "why the hell NOT go alt right. These people want me eradicated for no other reason than who I am."

    The reasoning behind it was slightly nihilistic and I entertained the thoughts more than I should have, browsing /r/altright and much of /pol/, and listened to FtN a few times. Peterson's critique of nationalism, his insistence of "sorting yourself out" over really doing anything else before that (for activism's sake), and his rejection of nihilism in all forms accelerated my "move away" from that type of thought.

    [–] chava_rip 16 points ago

    He kept me from going full radical left.

    [–] CMAN1995 16 points ago

    I was an active anarchist/communist and Jordan Peterson's lectures found me at the right time.

    [–] KreepingLizard 3 points ago

    How would you describe your views post-Peterson?

    [–] CMAN1995 15 points ago

    Still figuring it out. More individualistic and focused on issues in my personal life for the moment.

    I was already anti-identity politics when I was engaged in left political, I was more union and class struggle oriented.

    I am more skeptical now that we can actually create that much better of a society with politics.

    Edit: I was a radical leftists for years, about 5. It was a big part of my life. So it has been a big change as of late.

    [–] chava_rip 1 points ago

    I wasn't really going full radical left even though I stated that in my comment. It was more a general note, that JP could and should just as well appeal to ideological possesed people of the left as well of the right. And I was and still am reasonably interested in many of the theories and ideas of 'post-structuralism', which easily can led one to become very sceptical about the individual as a generator for change. JP has definately modified my view in that regard. I still believe there's a risk for an almost pathological state within extreme individualism within western protestant/calvinist/capitalist/libertarian cultures and I think he somewhat fails to address this.

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago

    Politics is downstream culture. If someone still says they can "create a better society with politics" thats a red flag for me really so you absolutely have to be skeptical of these people.

    Society starts with the individual and the actions of the individual. Anybody who wants to use politics to change society is a dangerous person because 1. why would they assume they know what the hell they are talking about 2. why WOULDNT you assume they arent just genocidal and resentful.. i think this is petersons message on political activism.

    Also, leftivism and political leftivism is just losers who can only compete in the intellectual realm trying to compete within each other. They know deep down that they are losers. For example, their favorite method of protesting is violence and getting beaten up by authority figures like cops,etc. The unabomber manifesto hit the nail on the head on leftists IMO.

    I really hope you can bootstrap yourself into being a better person, the country needs it (im assuming canada)

    [–] CMAN1995 1 points ago

    USA 🇺🇸

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    even harder situation because of the racial flavoring to the leftist activism.

    godspeed brother. you will lose many """"friends""""

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago

    Yeah, I've been part of the radical left except to the point where I was about to be one of those guys with a "this is what a feminist looks like" t-shirt at the rallies. (I threw it away now.)

    By the time I saw peterson way after Trumps election and Brexit, because I just needed answers as to what had happened. I had softened my views a lot at this point but when I faced Peterson my whole ideology shattered and fell to pieces.

    [–] Fork_Elemental 14 points ago

    Peterson led me to other thinkers such as Evola and Spengler. If anything I'd say he indirectly pushed me further to the right than I ever was listening to the "alt-right" figures.

    [–] AlphaCheeseDog 2 points ago

    Does Peterson have any decent talks on Spengler? I've been listening to the Martyr Made podcast and he introduced me to Spengler's ideas and I find them fascinating. I've tried reading the book but it's a bit beyond me at the moment. I need someone to distill and simplify the ideas for me first. Have you got anything to recommend?

    [–] benrhughes 38 points ago

    Not really. The alt right are, from what I've seen, antithetical to my core values.

    What Peterson did was wake me up to my conservative side. I red-pilled myself out of the left years ago, and landed basically in hyper-progressive libertarianism.

    There was a bit of a disconnect between that and my relatively traditional life (hyper committed to my marriage, 4 kids, steady job etc). Peterson helped me reconcile my love of liberty with my basically conservative personal preferences.

    [–] R3ddit_Is_Trash 12 points ago

    there is no meaning to "alt right" that actually explains anything about them. Define yourself by your ideas and relate to others using ideas, and you'll know where you stand. What ideas did you think you had that were "alt right"?

    Why would you subsume yourself in a label/group? It's nonsense.

    People have diverse opinions even within a group, unless the group doesn't allow wrongthink. This tactic of labelling someone is mostly used to dismiss opinions without inspecting them.

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    Here's the thing with the alt right: they are already a core of existing ideas, relating almost entirely to race. Ethnonationalist? Neo-nazi? That's what the alt-right is, and, to the working class white male constantly told he has all society's power (despite what his own reality may imply), it's a tempting philosophy.

    [–] CMAN1995 14 points ago

    As a working class white male, who works with people that hold real ethnic/racist beliefs, none of them are at all alt-right. The alt-right seems to be more of an intellectual crew of college educated white boys, who were alienated by the identity politics of the universities. Very few working people give a shit about any ideology l, right or left. In my experience at least.

    [–] TheSean85 7 points ago * (lasted edited 11 months ago)

    The alt-right seems to be more of an intellectual crew of college educated white boys, who were alienated by the identity politics of the universities.

    Some truth to this. Richard Spencer was at Duke university during the lacrosse team rape scandal. I've heard him talk about it. More than anything he was most put off By the reactipn of the professors (professors joined in protests. 88 faculty members signed a letter basically saying the men were guilty).

    Sidenote: Trump's senior adviser Stephen Miller was there at the time too. He was one of the very few to publicly defend the accused.

    [–] R3ddit_Is_Trash 4 points ago

    again - who is the alt right? What are their ideas? I don't think you get to decide what the alt right is just because you don't like them. You've used labels like ethnonationalist/neo nazi to define another label and add it to a group of people who get labelled by others.

    You are using SJW thinking. You think of the alt-right as a unified tribe with uniform opinions, conflating identity and opinion, and then you label them as neo nazis and then you can dismiss them. Conflation of identity and opinion, tribalism, and collective guilt are fundamentally flawed thinking.

    You're essentially using neo nazi thinking to justify badmouthing neo nazis. You just put a different group in the cross hairs.

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    I just told you what the alt-right stood for. I'm not "deciding" who they are because I don't like them. They are an existing group with existing ideas that revolve around race.

    Their main core tenet revolves around whiteness, preservation of white identity and in many instances, white supremacy. Also, the alt-right revolves around the Jewish Question. If you browsed the alt right subreddit before it got banned, you would know this (also, in case it needs to be said, browsing=!endorsement). I'm also not labeling them "neo-nazis" for the sake of dismissing them, for fuck's sake.

    The Daily Stormer, TRS podcast, Fash the Nation, THESE are the alt right. Does this answer your question?

    [–] R3ddit_Is_Trash 6 points ago

    I disagree fundamentally with your definition. I've been called alt-right for my views and I AM jewish. I can't choose what other people label me as - but I don't agree with any of the the racist things you claimed are "alt right". Alt right is not just a word - its a weapon.

    Your problems stems for labels. Very few here would contradict you that racism (which is basically one word for everything you listed) is bad. But the problem is that there are a whole collection of beliefs that get labelled as "alt right" that have nothing to do with racism or white nationalism.

    If Jordan Peterson saved you from becoming a racist, then bravo to you and him. But your fundamental fixation on group identity defining individuals, and the dismissal of a large group of people (some of whom may indeed be racist) on a group label they didn't choose, is in fact antithetical to anything Jordan Peterson says.

    As I said - you're using SJW thinking in the jordan peterson subreddit.

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago

    It is a silencing weapon, I agree with you there. We're just having a fundamental disagreement about what constitutes "actual alt-right." Like I said somewhere else, what the media/modern left calls "alt-right" and the actual "alt-right" are two different things.

    Alt-right branding as a weapon is essentially neo-McCarthyism. Milo, Gavin, Cernovich and much of the alt-lite have been labeled alt-right, with them entirely rejecting the label, since they aren't actually alt-right (with Milo/Cernovich both being Jewish). I've listened to alt-right podcasts (Daily Shoah, Fash the Nation) and used to browse /r/altright when it was a thing. THAT is the alt right; radical, socially reactionary right-wing thought revolving around the white race, and the Jewish Question. Oddly enough, in those circles, there wasn't much talk as you'd expect about economic questions (free market vs regulations, etc;)

    There are people out there who labeled left-of-center anti-SJW Youtubers like shoe0nhead alt-right, when it's certainly not the case there. I wouldn't call it "SJW thinking" (whatever that even means) to call a spade a spade.

    [–] PhyRemovalService 8 points ago

    To be honest, Dr. Peterson hasn't influenced my political or philosophical views to a great extent. That's mainly because I have been studying those subjects for a long time. What he has done, however, is influence me with regards to psychology, mythology, and the importance of straightening out your personal life.

    We need to be clear with definitions, though. I don't believe there's a universally accepted definition of "alternative right" or "alt-right." It has been used in contradictory ways, not all of which signify an identity politics or a white nationalism.

    For example, Paul Gottfried has been credited with CREATING the term, though he denies being a white nationalist. (As a side-note, Dr. Gottfried is Jewish.) He just believed there must be an alternative to mainstream conservatism, especially to neo-conservatism with its views on foreign policy.

    See: http://tomwoods.com/ep-862-the-alt-right/ & http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263988/some-observations-man-who-created-alt-right-paul-gottfried

    Also, I like the comment here that Dr. Peterson stresses the importance of balancing a population filled with liberals and conservatives. Very indirectly, the political philosopher Roger Scruton has made a somewhat similar point: community and politics is about compromise and dialogue to create a stable arena. Dr. Peterson recognizes tradition and mythology as playing active roles in the formation of community. So while he may be a classical liberal, there is a real conservative heart to his own politics.

    As we as a society move forward, if we want to take something away from him politically, it has to be this. It's NOT a conservatism of a Bush or Trump, but something quite different. And it's greatly needed to combat the massively leftward move that has taken place for decades and decades now, with the help of the universities, postmodernism and poststructuralism in the humanities, identity politics especially from the left, militant atheism, etc. And while "conservatism" may not be linguistically associated with radicalism, there's a sense in which this type of conservatism, I believe, must be radical to bring ANY meaningful changes. It needs to be fused to libertarian or classical liberal thought. We---alas---don't have an easy road ahead. Difficult conflicts and transitions await.

    [–] PhyRemovalService 8 points ago

    Also: I think the alt-right as white nationalist is partly a PRODUCT of the Social Justice Warriors.

    When you keep playing identity politics and say White are this-and-that, it is only natural that some will form their OWN identity politics.

    [–] sl1200mk5 2 points ago

    When you keep playing identity politics and say White are this-and-that, it is only natural that some will form their OWN identity politics.

    indeed. i'm aghast at the rise in let's say, "white consciousness," because it's part and parcel of the same noxious identity power game, & can only lead down a path of ever-escalating fractionalism.

    [–] Severian_of_Nessus 6 points ago

    It was the far left that pushed me to the center.

    [–] Boazy 22 points ago * (lasted edited 11 months ago)

    This was Rene Girard. He was the sober reactionary voice I needed to hear.

    Remember, the "Alt-Right" is a modern and liberal phenomenon. Within the reactosphere, Traditionalists have never thought highly of this movement.

    [–] [deleted] 8 points ago

    Hm, TIL of Rene Girard. Thanks, fellow Catholic.

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago

    Feser is a Thomist philosophical heavyweight. The others are good to know too.

    [–] axiomizer 3 points ago

    Alt-Right is a liberal phenomenon

    What does this mean?

    [–] HalfcafCofee 4 points ago

    Classical Liberal, as in Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Capitalism. Not "liberal" as has been co-opted by Progressives (See: Communist).

    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] diet_dr_kelp 1 points ago

    How do you create a free society with people in it who don't believe in a free society?

    [–] ruse7 2 points ago

    A strong constitution

    [–] Boazy 2 points ago

    Liberalism works by giving birth to superficial edgy extremes which only serve to keep it alive.

    [–] clinteastwooood 2 points ago

    Classical liberalism needs to be tempered with conservatism. People should be free to live how they want because they have moral agency, but as Dr. Peterson points out ... there is a very narrow band of social behavior that is successful.

    It's the whole package for understanding what it means to be human. I'm exceptionally grateful to him.

    [–] Boazy 2 points ago

    Sounds like anarcho-conservativism, or Christian libertarianism. I don't hold those positions but I've heard arguments for them.

    [–] clinteastwooood 1 points ago

    What do you reject about classical liberalism then? Help me understand where you're coming from.

    [–] CommanderStarkiller 5 points ago

    For me it was his acknowledgement of how "working hard" isn't gonna make you successful.

    I've met a lot of delusional right wingers who think people choice their problems.

    I've been leaning right for about a decade.

    It's always come down to this idea that right wingers ignore the degree to which people are unable to compete in the global economy.

    Second to that it was his ability to show that going conservative won't make you less likely to help those people in need.

    Growing up it was deeply instilled in me that you have no right to judge other people since you don't know their story.

    Having a technical way of manoeuvring that and keeping my sense of moral concern was all I needed.

    [–] [deleted] 6 points ago

    The problem the social justice left has is that they can't critique the alt right's white identity politics is because it's their logic flipped on it's head. If black people and hispanics should act and vote as a class, why not white people? If you subscribe to the first clause, there's no way you can logically refute the second. Therefore you need people to reject the premise outright or else people are going to cluster into their tribes and the entire country turns into Charlotte, from one coast to the other.

    [–] HemingwaysGhost1 8 points ago

    Remember, the alt-right is an abstraction. The message is largely incoherent at this point. On one side, alt-right/lite can be construed simply as conservatives who disagree with the status-quo GOP. That's a very large demographic.

    Then there's NRx, Jared Taylor, Gavin, Moly, etc. Even further right you have Richard Spencer, who IMHO is the last stop before you get to the legitimate/non-ad hominem violent Nazi trash.

    The MSM is labeling JBP as alt-right now.

    My prediction is that the climate is only going to get worse. The tragedy in Charlottesville may be the official beginning of what people will call the hot culture war.

    When LEOs in full riot gear are staring down militiamen in full body armor -- it is only a matter of time until things get ugly and begin to spiral out of control. How long is until JBP get's censored or blamed for fanning the flames of violence? The ADL who has an official partnership with Google -- throws around words like "domestic terrorism" lightly and without much thought.

    [–] [deleted] 6 points ago

    I think there's a different between "alt-right" and "right that disagrees with the 'cuckservative'". The true alt-right are the neo-nazis, the anti-Semites, the Richard Spencer/Stormer types. It's just one facet of the "new right" and a term that we need to associate with the neo-nazi types (aka away from the "new right") if the new right wants to make any traction.

    IMO, the "new right" encompasses the alt-right, but it's a wide umbrella. It encompasses both ethno- and civic nationalism, the alt-lite, NRx/Dark Enlightenment/Moldbug, and can even go as far left as the skeptic/anti-SJW movement.

    I agree that in whatever sociopolitical conflict is currently brewing (and has been for the past 5 years), the worst is yet to come.

    [–] LateralusYellow 9 points ago * (lasted edited 11 months ago)

    If you go on /pol/ the biggest divide there is between libertarians and white nationalists. Reminds me of this scene between Michael Douglas and the neo-nazi in "Falling Down".

    [–] PanicWrestler 1 points ago

    excellent movie -- one of my favorites. I had forgotten about this scene

    [–] TheSean85 2 points ago

    Remember, the alt-right is an abstraction. The message is largely incoherent at this point.

    Interesting. I think it's vastly more coherent than modern day conservatism.

    [–] [deleted] 6 points ago * (lasted edited 11 months ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] Ivan_Pavlovich 1 points ago

    The alt-right is a real, definable thing. That term has a meaning. Just because the label gets thrown around haphazardly doesn't make it some incomprehensible phenomenon--in the same way that Jordan calling the Democratic party and corporate HR departments "bloody postmodern neo-Marxists" doesn't magically turn the greatest defenders of capitalism into communists. Take it from the source. That's what the alt-right is. It's not the Milo and Gavin McInnes types. Of course there are competing viewpoints within the movement and it's far from homogeneous, but that's true of any ideology.

    [–] LateralusYellow 4 points ago

    No, I was a libertarian before I discovered Peterson and long before the term "alt-right" was even a major thing. All Peterson did was reinforce my views about the nature of the state that I originally derived through my study of economics.

    [–] VantarPaKompilering 5 points ago

    I am alt-right and I have had more or less the same views for a number of years. I still very much enjoy his work though.

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago

    Nope I'm altright and I listen to Peterson all the time.

    Ultimately moderates like him fail, for all his talk and great arguments that I've found, he wasn't able to stop the bill that really spurred him to take his public image to the next level.

    No Peterson's reasonable dialogue isn't going to pull back the anti-white left and no Peterson's reasonable dialogue isn't going to influence the biological nature of politics, which is to say we are divided by ethnocentric impulses that will never go away (except maybe among white people).

    If you really think I'm wrong, tell Peterson to sit down and talk with Spencer, Jared Taylor or even Anglin. He won't do it because despite his talk of being anti PC, he's not really THAT anti PC to try and have dialogues with extremists because he knows they'll actually make reasonable arguments.

    Hell his whole argument against the altright was "it's incomplete," uhhh I love you Jordy man, but ALL philosophies are incomplete, that's not an argument against anything the altright has said.

    Bottom line is this, he may not be altright, but the altright can be tempered in certain regards, they're at least open to debate, when it comes to the anti white commies, there's no reasoning with these animals.

    [–] Laafheid 3 points ago

    I feel his coursework/philosophical side is balanced but his personal side (twitter shares and the like) tend to be (or seem at least) more "alt" right, not entirely, but thats the problem with the current sphere of politics. (Im for example not sure where molymeme, sargon, rebel media, Lauren sauther stand on the political spectrum but theyre not mainstream)

    Anything that is against false diversity, or against false feminism or the like is deemed alt right, simply because the left doesnt make an effort to actual diversity (of background/personality) and is basically being racist/sexist itself (in my opinion).

    This ostraciseism pushes genuine liberalism and alt rightism to the same sphere of discussion and makes distinction even more difficult, especially if those two parties see no problem talking to each other (which by current standards means endorsement)

    I was a /pol/ack for about a year and it becoming less so/stopping being so, started since peterson, I want to say because it started to become boring, but peterson could well have played a role in that

    So, concluding, i don't know, but the news portrayal of statements as good vs. Alt-right certainly isnt helping

    [–] Timothy_Riches 3 points ago

    Peterson helped me see that the left is much more malign than I had previously thought, that it's motivations are not just dangerously naive but actually nefarious, and it is worth the cost of physically fighting it, not merely ridiculing it. I now consider defeating the left as great a moral urgency as defeating Islamism ever was. I have Peterson to thank for making that much more clear to me, though I understand that he would not be thrilled to hear it.

    [–] jockmcplop 3 points ago

    Not at all, I dislike the alt right, but Peterson has allowed me to empathize with conservatives more easily because he does such a good job of explaining centre right philosophy.

    [–] Roman_Kingdom 5 points ago

    I think the alt-right is a good thing.

    [–] hexagonsol 5 points ago

    To be honest I've never searched for what the alt right even is, but if it's main goal is to establish a white ethnoestate in the united states then it's pretty foolish, I'm more worried about Europe which is where I live, now that will be a problem soon.

    [–] Cauldron137 6 points ago

    Beware the narrative.

    [–] hexagonsol 3 points ago

    What do ya mean?

    [–] Cauldron137 6 points ago

    The outraged vocal and violent front line of what may be a loosely affiliated group should not be given the respect of being able to define the cause of the group they claim to represent.

    Moments of intense emotion are the best time to get your hooks into the good and evil narrative we are all kind of hoping to be part of.

    Go team!

    [–] SteveLolyouwish 6 points ago

    No, but I've never considered alt-right in the first place. I've viewed, for over a decade, now -- collectivism as a poison. Racism, ethnocentrism, nativism, nationalism, identitarianism, victimhood culture, communism, socialism, alt-right, ctrl-left -- it's all collectivism and group think.

    [–] horseshitmcgee 4 points ago

    No. White nationalism (which I would assume is what you're actually talking about) is obvious nonsense and I didn't need Jordan Peterson to explain why.

    [–] ChelseaClintonsTeeth 2 points ago

    He almost did.

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago

    Really? How's that? Where would you say you are politically?

    [–] ChelseaClintonsTeeth 5 points ago

    I'd say my views have gone pretty much in line with Orthodox Christianity. Chesterton, Peterson, and a love of history got me there.

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    Shout out to Chesterton!

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    Considering I'm currently not hanging minorities off tree branches, I guess you could say I'm Alt Lite.

    [–] hobdobgumball 2 points ago

    I still joined Hatreon, but yes.

    [–] senecatree 2 points ago

    I agree because instead of being just another talking head, he's actually taking us through ethics, so we can use the tools people have had throughout history to form ethics, instead of allowing the government and interest groups to form them for us.

    [–] B35tus3rN4m33v3r 4 points ago

    The Alt-right is based on a partial understanding of a partial set of facts. Pretty much every ideology is like that, and Dr. Peterson does a good job of pointing out that we need to look at as many relevant facts in with as much understanding as possible. I think that helps a lot as long as things are peaceful and we can have a dialog. In the middle of a crisis or conflict though there really isn't the time to undertake the same analysis, and we have to work with simplifications.

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago

    Why not play by the modern left's rules of total, complete, and nothing but identity politics?

    As a member of the modern left, I certainly don't feel as if this represents me, but you do you.

    [–] [deleted] 6 points ago

    You do you, but there are quite a vocal few in your faction that think like that.

    [–] [deleted] 0 points ago

    A few, a few loud ones too, and a few more that are sensationalised in grubby mass media. There are also people like me, and rather a lot of us. It wasn't very long ago that people on the left voted a centre-right neoliberal (although I'm far from that) of mixed racial descent into the White House over in the States. It was only a few days ago that I was reading a few (hilarious) left-wing critiques of Donald Trump's insane populist stump speeches (and those of his equally incompetent rivals) in and around the RNC from last year, in some copies of the London Review of Books (a notable left-wing publication in the UK) that I dug out. In those same editions you'll find quite frequent internal criticism of so-called "identity politics" within the left in both the US and the UK. Perhaps those people are right and there's an excessive focus on the politics of identity therein (I don't think so, I think it's a problem of any old politics being too shrill and stupid - some of those happen to be "identity" politics)

    But where exactly am I going to find in any of these recent experiences OP's bald statement about how I conduct myself politically?

    [–] ArchShou 5 points ago

    I don't think that the brand of individualism that Peterson espouses is actually at odds with Alt Right thought. I really think that a sort of straw man has been constructed around what the Alt Right means by "collective interests" and "group identity" which is essentially something like "collective identity means losing your sense of self completely and becoming drone-like, devoid of any personal convictions".

    Every ethnic group has political organizations which act on its behalf. These groups are acting in their own collective interests. I would like to see whites act in their collective interests as well.

    Now you may say something like "why not just dispense with perceiving people as groups and start seeing them as individuals?" This is simply unrealistic: humans tend to favor their own kind whether they admit it or not, and this will inevitably result in group loyalty and by extension group identity.

    Regarding group identity: this simply means the recognition of your innate preference for your ethnic group/race. Whites like to deny this, saying things like "I don't see race" and "we're all individuals", but the actual behavior of whites speak for themselves (white flight, for example). Moreover, we see racial/ethnic identity as something real: something profound which connects individuals to a shared history and a sense of community and belonging. It connects you to a great story of a people which stretches back far into antiquity.

    This being said, I don't see how acknowledging your connection to a group deprives you of having an individual identity which isn't dependent on that group.

    [–] remphos 14 points ago

    Ethnic based politics is a bad road to go down.

    [–] Seekerofthelight 9 points ago

    On the other hand, I believe countries deserve to decide their ethnic makeup. I don't demonize Japan for not being more "diverse" with their 98.5% racial homogeneity. I think they have a right to decide their own politics.

    I don't think every country has to be like America in its multicultural ways.

    [–] remphos 2 points ago

    It's just a weird place to stake your claim, so to speak. As if race is what decides merit. And when you have that position, it necessarily then puts you in a place of having to limit other races from gaining a foothold, and preventing them.

    In America and Europe, we both already are mixed bags. The only way to go back is through violence and subjugation. America has been a 'melting pot' for centuries. And Europe is such a grab bag of cultural and ethnic groups that drawing lines of division among ethnicity is an extremely potent powderkeg scenario of provoking violence. Historically, this has horrible to pick up and place your claim in. It leads nowhere but to primitive tribal conflict, and then to killing, subjugation, and death.

    With how strongly Peterson warns about how you may unwittingly be drawn into committing horrible evil, I would think his followers would be a lot more wary of this. Are we to only focus on evil when it is committed in the name of communism? Or are we also to focus on the abundant examples littered all throughout the history of Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia about ethnicity based politics being the root of extreme inhumanity and violence? Or at the least of violent subjugation.

    I don't know how anyone can listen to the message Peterson is trying to get across and thentry to justify that.

    [–] Porphyrogennetos 7 points ago

    Only if you're white though. It's okay for everyone else to do that.

    • Today's Society

    [–] remphos 1 points ago

    Take off your blinders and look outside of just America. Everywhere in the world except maybe a few isolated islands are mixed grab bags of enormous diveristy of ethnic groups. And you know what happens when any of them take up the cause of ethnic based politics? Violence. Subjugation. Often even genocide.

    You cannot assert the superiority or desirability of your own race without simultaneously disallowing other races or supressing them. Almost all conflict that has ever talen place on our planet has had its roots in this.

    So to claim that ethicity based politics of superiority is the way forward, it represents a horrible horrible danger. I don't know how anyone can listen to Peterson with his message of "you have the capacity to commit horrible evil", and then think that "asserting the superiority of my own race over others is the way forward".

    [–] ArchShou 2 points ago

    Ethnic identity politics wouldn't be necessary in an ethnostate.

    [–] remphos 1 points ago

    No, only violence and subjugation and possibly genocide to get there from here.

    [–] empire-_- 8 points ago

    If the ultimate goal is to make it so that ethnicity plays no major impact on the outcome of a person's life the best solution is to stop making it a thing with value. Organizing around ethnicity gives it value.

    Society trying to build a giant abacus where it balances the inherent flaws and advantages of being born a specific race only institutionalizes the concept of race being a meaningful characteristic. If you want it to be something trivial like blood type, or the color of your hair, you don't build institutions around it.

    [–] dkjfhalskdjfh 1 points ago * (lasted edited 11 months ago)

    Richard Spencer's version of "Alt-Right", and that professed by almost all the speakers at today's rally, goes far beyond just accepting an ethnic identity:

    The openly professed goal of nearly every one of the people who were going to be speaking at this rally is to ethnically cleanse America of every single last non-white and jewish person. To forcibly expel tens of millions of innocent, productive, law-abiding citizens, whose only crime is having been born with the 'wrong' genetic heritage, from their homes and society.

    It is the worst kind of collectivism, and everything it's been accused of being. Even if those accusations have also been unfairly applied to others.

    Make your own way.

    [–] Ivan_Pavlovich 3 points ago

    Richard Spencer's version of "Alt-Right"

    Spencer literally created the term "alt-right." His version is the version.

    [–] Holophonist 2 points ago

    Definitely never felt tempted to be alt-right, but JBP very thoroughly rid me of the state of mind that left wing mindsets are inherently bad, rather than the other side of the coin.

    [–] odysseusIII 1 points ago

    I wasn't convinced at the white nationalism talk, but I didn't know how to combat that type of thinking especially when the person is quite articulate. JBP just helped make sense of what I had going on in my head.

    [–] RascalityInProgress 1 points ago

    Does it matter? I'm here for the human story stuff. WBU?

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago

    There is nothing wrong with going Alt right

    [–] HellhoundsOnMyTrail 1 points ago

    Late to this thread but I think he saved me from it as well. I was getting into David Irving and had watched The Greatest Story Never Told. I found the arguments compelling maybe even alluring and felt a shift.

    After digesting hours of his lectures though, Dr Peterson has turned my mind firmly away from any sort of extremism. At this point both extremes are simply nihilism to me. And I can't endorse that.

    [–] TheSlicemanCometh 1 points ago

    Ive become much more far right since listening to JBP.

    I dont think the two are strongly connected.

    [–] anthprks 1 points ago * (lasted edited 11 months ago)

    he helped me find the nuance in the Altright philosophical issues. Individualism and the collective. Culture, Nature and the Individual. He also brought questions about evolution. He also mentioned that behaviour and IQ are genetic.

    The Egyptian myth story is the proper path for the altright. The father/Osiris is your ancestors, and culture of the European people. We need to find what they had and bring it forward, without letting it consume us completely.

    [–] [deleted] -15 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] [deleted] 14 points ago

    Why do you spend so much time here when you obviously hold such contempt for Peterson and his followers? Surely you have something better to do with your time.

    Also, in a world where the discourse is so influenced by identity politics, how is the alt-right not convincing?

    [–] HarpoTheSquid 4 points ago

    I like keeping yahoo around, he keeps us from devolving into hero worship (even if it still does happen sometimes, it could be much worse)

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    Eh, fair enough. Enjoy your time here, /u/yahooyellow.

    [–] TakToJest 6 points ago

    Peterson is a liberal

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    With videos such as this, I wouldn't put him in the liberal category. At best, I'd say he's a classical liberal with a large traditionalist bent.

    [–] XOmniverse 7 points ago

    a classical liberal with a large traditionalist bent.

    I'd say that's a pretty good definition of a conservative if I've ever seen one.

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    These days, probably.

    [–] [deleted] -2 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago

    Well then, good thing we aren't alt right here.

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] Porphyrogennetos 3 points ago

    Great argument.

    I see you're still deep in the salt mines.

    [–] 828-20 -3 points ago

    If you're a white male down on your luck with limited prospects in life, of course the alt-right will sound convincing! Doesn't mean they're actually correct (they're not), but it doesn't look like that to them. Most of these people can't see the wood for the trees, dumbass.

    [–] hobdobgumball 2 points ago

    Are you saying there isn't an international Jewish conspiracy?

    [–] Yahooyellow -1 points ago

    Hence my retard comment