Jordan Peterson discusses the crumbling walls of Western Civilisation

Although I am a graduate of the University of Toronto, that’s not why this interests me so much: Jordan Peterson: Why I am no longer a tenured professor at the University of Toronto. Universities are no longer safe territories for anyone other than those on the committed left. It’s an old story by now, but if even a Jordan Peterson is no longer seen as an esteemed colleague in what was Canada’s best university, then no one is. Here are a few highlights from what he has to say.

I had envisioned teaching and researching at the U of T, full time, until they had to haul my skeleton out of my office. I loved my job. And my students, undergraduates and graduates alike, were positively predisposed toward me. But that career path was not meant to be. There were many reasons, including the fact that I can now teach many more people and with less interference online. But here’s a few more.

First, my qualified and supremely trained heterosexual white male graduate students (and I’ve had many others, by the way) face a negligible chance of being offered university research positions, despite stellar scientific dossiers….

Second reason: [The] many issues of appalling ideology currently demolishing the universities and, downstream, the general culture….

Furthermore, the accrediting boards for graduate clinical psychology training programs in Canada are now planning to refuse to accredit university clinical programs unless they have a “social justice” orientation….

And if you think DIE is bad [“Diversity, Inclusivity and Equity mandates (my preferred acronym: DIE)”] , wait until you get a load of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) scores . Purporting to assess corporate moral responsibility, these scores, which can dramatically affect an enterprise’s financial viability, are nothing less than the equivalent of China’s damnable social credit system, applied to the entrepreneurial and financial world. CEOs: what in the world is wrong with you?…

Finally, do you know that Vladimir Putin himself is capitalizing on this woke madness?… It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs, and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society….

And all of you going along with the DIE activists, whatever your reasons: this is on you. Professors. Cowering cravenly in pretence and silence. Teaching your students to dissimulate and lie. To get along. As the walls crumble. For shame.

Jordan Peterson is near unique, not so much in his views but in his prominence in spite of his views. How long he can withstand the pressure we shall only eventually see, but the ruin that others are trying to bring into his life is an all-too vivid example of how one’s life can be completely ruined if one does not toe the line.

What does Jordan Peterson get right?

Great answer at Quora to a stupid question from Harry Quinlan, “Husband, Father, Engineer, Undergraduate Bullsh*t Detector”


Here are a few things:


  1. Sociology & Psychology is dominated by a mix of left, far left and Marxists & there is a Female majority – Thus there is a considerable amount of Group-Think that infects their studies and reports such that the conclusions are not sound and the data is not repeatable.[1]
  2. Gender differences are only partially socially constructed and Men and Women differ in preferences. Men prefer things (e.g. Engineering), Women prefer people (e.g. Medecine).
  3. Sociologists might say that the gender difference in preference is small BUT Peterson is still right because that small shift in the curve matters. If a Sociologist denies this, it can only be because it does not suit their Ideology or they are ignorant of how Standard Distributions work. (e.g. Men are slightly more physically violent than Women but that small difference is enough such that nearly all of the most violent people are Men, Women’s small difference in preference for people is sufficient to explain why so many more Women than Men are in teaching, nursing, etc.)
  4. Where Men and Women have MOST equality in the world (Sweden) Gender Difference in preference is stronger. This backs up what Peterson is saying and makes the Social Constructionists & Radical Feminists very unhappy because it is the opposite of what they were expecting.
  5. Petersons detractors are mostly forced to attack HIM rather than what he is saying because they would lose the debate in any rational forum.
  6. Young men are in trouble these days because they lack the support services that young women have and many are afflicted with the messages of shame and “privilege” that come from the radical feminist position where gender bashing is the main sport. This can be measured in many ways, suicide rates, educational outcomes, employment opportunities, incarceration. New economic & educational data is now skewed in favour of young women. This would come as a shock to many feminists who have been brainwashed in the opposite position since they were very young.
  7. If you asked most Women what the gender pay gap is they would say ~17% or more in favour of Men. This is an aberration of statistics that left-wing Sociologists conveniently ignore because they would not be able to justify their claims of a Patriarchy, Male dominance and a glass ceiling. Young women under 40 in the UK (for example) are doing just as well as men. It is mostly when they are older & have children that the pay gap appears. Again, this would shock most people of a feminist persuasion. The data on this can be hard to find because it is not ideologically or politically correct.

Jordan Peterson interviewed by Dennis Prager

The idea that Peterson is not one of the best advocates for the side of reason and conservative values is again shown to be absolute suicidal, self-defeating nonsense. If you don’t agree with someone 100% is no reason not to welcome the 90% of what you do agree with. And if you don’t agree with 90% of what Peterson says, you are not a conservative anyway.

When doesn’t the left go too far?

Jordan Peterson: When the left goes too far — the dangerous doctrine of equity

The mantra of Diversity, Inclusivity and Equity (DIE) perhaps constitutes the primary identifying factor of the tiny minority of radical collectivist ideologues that nonetheless have come to dominate the humanities and social sciences in Western universities (and, increasingly, the HR departments of corporations). Of these three, equity is the most egregious, self-righteous, historically-ignorant and dangerous. “Equity” is a term designed to signal “equality,” in some manner, and is a term designed to appeal to the natural human tendency toward fairness, but it does not mean the classic equality of the West, which is equality before the law and equality of opportunity.

Equality before the law means that each citizen will be treated fairly by the criminal justice and judicial systems regardless of their status — and that the state recognizes that each individual has an intrinsic value which serves as a limit to state power, and which the polity must respect. There is likely no more fundamental presumption grounding our culture.

Equality of opportunity is a doctrine of openness predicated on the fact that talent is widely distributed although comparatively rare. This should come as no surprise to anyone, given that some people are much better at doing a given task than others and, because of that, it is in everyone’s selfish interest to allow such talent to come to the fore so that we can all benefit. This means that no one should be arbitrarily denied the possibility of their contribution for reasons unrelated to the task at hand. This is also a fundamental principle of Western culture, particularly in its free-market guise.

Equity is a whole different ballgame. It is based on the idea that the only certain measure of “equality” is outcome—educational, social, and occupational. The equity-pushers axiomatically assume that if all positions at every level of hierarchy in every organization are not occupied by a proportion of the population that is precisely equivalent to that proportion in the general population that systematic prejudice (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) must be at play. This assumption has as its corollary the idea that there are perpetrators (the “privileged,” for current or historical reasons) who are unfair beneficiaries of the system or outright perpetrators of prejudice and who must be identified, limited and punished.

There is simply no excuse for this doctrine.

Whether you read the rest is up to you, but you should.

Jordan Peterson comments on Cambridge University rescinding his invitation for a visiting fellowship

Jordan Peterson: I wish Cambridge’s Faculty of Divinity the obscurity it deeply deserves. The sub-head:

I don’t know why the Divinity school has rescinded my visiting fellowship to Cambridge because (and this is particularly appalling) it has not formally notified me of the decision

And this puts it all into perspective:

Since their posting, beginning in May of 2017, these lectures have received about 10 million hits (as well as an equal or greater number of downloads). The first lecture alone — on the first sentence of Genesis — has garnered 3.7 million views just on YouTube, which makes it the most well-received of all the talks I have ever posted online. I have received correspondence in great volume from religious people all over the world, Jews, Christians, Buddhists and Muslims alike — and an equally large number from atheists — all telling me that my psychological take on the Genesis material resonated very strongly with their faith, or that it helped them understand for the first time the value of these stories. You can see this for yourself by reading the comments on the YouTube channel, which are remarkably civilized and positive, by social media standards.

Peterson is clearly insulted by his treatment, and says just what is the case, that it is Cambridge that is diminished by its decision.

What a dud university Cambridge has become!

Having been a visiting scholar there myself, I can attest that the finest thing about the place are its buildings. As for its scholars and scholarship, just bear in mind that I was there to do research in the Keynes Archive at King’s where he had written The General Theory. But it is, after all, a university, you know, a place where scholars can meet and discuss issues of all kinds in a calm and reflective manner. Here, then, is a fine modern example of what universities have now become: University of Cambridge Cancels Jordan Peterson’s Visiting Fellowship Because He Is Not ‘Inclusive’. That is, he does not conform to the lock-step far-left views of its academics and students.

Jordan Peterson, the University of Toronto psychologist known for criticizing political correctness, announced Monday that he would be a visiting fellow at the University of Cambridge’s divinity school.

But on Wednesday, Cambridge’s administration announced that they had rescinded the invitation following a public outcry from students and professors.

“[Cambridge] is an inclusive environment and we expect all our staff and visitors to uphold our principles,” a Cambridge spokesperson told The Guardian. “There is no place here for anyone who cannot.”

Philby, Burgess, Blunt and Maclean, all no doubt in high esteem among staff and students today, but Peterson, among the greatest scholars of our generation, is not even welcome to spend time on campus where others might seek out his views, debate what he says, and deepen their own understanding.

MORE HERE: From The Spectator: Cambridge’s shameful decision to rescind Jordan Peterson’s visiting fellowship.

Jordan Peterson discusses the Nazis in comparison with communists

How does one make the moral distinction, he asks, between the Nazis and the comms with the speaker actually using the term “socialism”? The video shows his answer. But here’s a hint about his answer: I really really like what he says.

Which brings to mind this quote from John Stuart Mill which I ran across today:

Apart from the peculiar tenets of individual thinkers, there is also in the world at large an increasing inclination to stretch unduly the powers of society over the individual, both by the force of opinion and even by that of legislation. And as the tendency of all the changes taking place in the world is to strengthen society, and diminish the power of the individual, this encroachment is not one of the evils which tend spontaneously to disappear, but on the contrary, to grow more and more formidable. This disposition of mankind, whether as rulers or as fellow-citizens, to impose their own opinions and inclinations as a rule of conduct on others, is so energetically supported by some of the best and by some of the worst feelings incident to human nature, that it is hardly ever kept under restraint by anything but want of power; and as the power is not declining, but growing, unless a stronger barrier of moral conviction can be raised against the mischief, we must expect, in the present circumstances of the world, to see it increase.

He wrote that 150 years ago. Just think how much more applicable and terrifying all that is today. If you haven’t read On Liberty, you really should.

Jordan Peterson would have voted for Hillary!

What a dunce! This is from Caroline Overington in The Oz, yesterday:

In an hour-long interview, he tackles a range of topics, including the rise of Trump, which he characterises more as the fall of Clinton. (Had Peterson been an American, he says he would have “held his nose and voted for her”.)

I did look high and low for quite a long time to see what I could discover on his attitude to the American President and nowhere could I find a thing until yesterday. This is an unforced error. He was on Q&A the day before and managed to not answer a question on whether he believed in G-d since, as I see it, he does not want to be pigeonholed as basing his arguments on a Christian platform. I understand why he is wary of such associations, since it makes him an easier target for the left. I suppose in its own way, aligning his political views with Hillary also makes him less vulnerable to attack from the left.

But all that aside, he did not have to answer. Lots of ways to have evaded the question, but he chose not to. And we are not in the middle of 2016 with the election before us, and an unknown untried potentially loose cannon is running for President. We are instead more than two years into the soundest, most sensible presidency of my lifetime, going against a wall of stupidity, that I would have thought would align Peterson with the President’s agenda. Not so, it seems. What a complete goose. Anti-Marxist but pro-Hillary. Truly disgusting and dispiriting. A reminder just how wary you have to be about everyone’s political judgement.