Matty from Matty’s Modern Life has taken a great deal of exception to my criticism of his hero Jordan Peterson. He has been extremely active in the comments section of each of my posts on XYZ magazine on the subject, perhaps laboring under the illusion that on the internet you win if you’re the last one to comment. Apart from a very few instances I have abstained from commenting. My statement is in the articles themselves and I trust that the rational and logical reader will come to the correct conclusions himself.
But now Matty has published what he considers to be a direct rebuttal of my piece – In defense of Jordan Peterson, sort of. And because there are so many errors in his article I have no choice but to respond so as to set the record straight.
“It started with an Adam Piggot article accusing Peterson of a number of things (the Professor even tweeted it out himself).”
Peterson tweeted it, (and also posted it on his Facebook page), because I hit him where it hurts. If what I had said was untrue he would have ignored it.
“Including the claim Peterson is an elaborate ruse to turn people into progressives. This wild accusation is made without evidence, so as such I can dismiss it without evidence. It’s completely false based on my assessment of his work.”
My article was an opinion piece. I mean, how fatuous do you have to be to make such a statement? Did not the words at the beginning of the sentence not give it away?
“Ultimately I believe that Peterson is an elaborate and very clever deception to prevent young men from inadvertently straying off the progressive reservation by using sophisticated messaging via a platform that seems on the surface to be a genuine alternative to the prog reality.”
I believe. Seems like a good way to present an opinion.
Not only that, but this passage is my conclusion to my opinion piece. The evidence that I have presented is the sum total of my entire arguments in the article up to this point. Matty is simply being dishonest here. He claims that my accusation is completely false but he doesn’t even attempt to provide a counter argument.
“Peterson is a liberal in the classical sense. He was a socialist in his younger years but, like many fooled youths, he woke up. Until there is solid evidence to prove otherwise there is no reason to doubt him.”
There is no reason to doubt him? Sounds like Matty is a believer, not a seeker of truth.
Peterson’s tweet which was loaded with SJW-speak was wonderful evidence but Matty dismissed it as being sarcastic in tone, which was simply wishful conjecture. But if Matty desires more evidence then I shall provide him with some examples.
It turns out that Peterson is not only a shill for the globalists but an active participant in helping draft their documentation:
“Jordan B. Peterson worked on the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Sustainable Development, editing a document that was released in 2013 entitled ‘A NEW GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP: ERADICATE POVERTY AND TRANSFORM ECONOMIES THROUGH SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT’. One of the panel members of this UN High Council was none other than skippy himself, John Podesta.”
John Podesta? Nice company that Peterson is keeping.
“Some initially doubted that Peterson was actually involved with this UN agenda, since he is not listed among the 27 members of the panel. However, in an interview with The Dark Room Podcast in October 2016, Peterson openly declared that he was not merely involved with the UN HLP report, but actually wrote the underlying narrative for it.”
This is the same Peterson who has recently been anointed by super extreme left-wing prog publication The New York Times as a member of the “Intellectual Dark Web”. When the NYT is pushing his case then you had better believe that he has been carefully selected to provide a pre-approved message.
How about some of Peterson’s own words from his first book, Maps of Meaning?
“Of course, my socialist colleagues and I weren’t out to hurt anyone. Quite the reverse. We were out to improve things—but we were going to start with other people. I came to see the temptation in this logic, the obvious flaw, the danger—but could also see that it did not exclusively characterize socialism. Anyone who was out to change the world by changing others was to be regarded with suspicion. The temptations of such a position were too great to be resisted.
“It was not socialist ideology that posed the problem, then, but ideology as such.”
Moving right along let’s get back to Matty’s “great take-down”.
“One criticism in this article is that he gives women a “free pass” while telling men to take all responsibility for their actions.
“This is not true at all; in fact he’s been quite critical of the choices commonly made by modern women. He consistently laments their desire to pursue a career and advises women to start a family instead.”
Telling women that they should be having babies instead of a career has nothing to do with making women responsible for their actions. That’s an either/or proposition. (Also, Peterson runs a consultancy business which specializes in coaching women in high-powered careers to better compete with men, so he’s not really practicing what he’s supposedly preaching, is he.)
“There is a reason advice for men and women is different, it’s because men and women are different. A man doesn’t just become a “man”, he needs to earn the title; a woman becomes a woman simply by reaching maturity. Men need to “man up” not least because men have been bullied by feminist rubbish for decades.”
Jordan Peterson on Facebook:
“I’m not anti-feminist.”
Facebook, August 10, 2017
“The very concept of “toxic masculinity” has beaten many men into submission and shame. Men need to “man up” because that’s how you become a man!”
No, no, a thousand times no. You don’t become a man by “manning up”. If that were the case then all you’d need to do to become a man would be to get some lousy job, marry some tart, and then get her to pop out some kids which were hopefully yours that you’d proceed to support. Hey presto! A man!
There is a huge pressure on men today to man up and do the right thing as regards to the feminine imperative. Peterson is not teaching men to make men of themselves; he’s teaching them to become better providers. He wants to make men more acceptable to women but there is no corresponding attempt to make women more acceptable to men. In this he is entirely in line with current orthodoxy. On the surface it sounds like a wonderful sales pitch but the reality is one of dancing through endless hoops so as to qualify for female approval.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: men make themselves, women find themselves.
Peterson’s advice to clean your room, pet the neighborhood cat, and stand up straight is perfectly acceptable advice, for someone who is 12 years old.
Matty also disapproves somewhat of my criticism of Peterson’s supposed credentials as to having any real experience with women.
“This is classic “zomg you leik didn’t nail 100 chix in yo life? Gawd that’s leik totes lame bro.” Another way of framing this is: Jordan Peterson has been in a loving and monogamous relationship for essentially his entire life.”
Peterson’s love life history as he himself has publicly framed it would be a perfectly acceptable story, but only if Peterson were a woman himself. His tale of childhood infatuation and puppy-dog following until the object of his affections finally relents is picture perfect rom-com 101 that the chicks just lap up, because that is what women would do.
All of this would be entirely irrelevant except that Peterson has set himself up as some sort of authority on the subject.
“He’s raised children with the love of his life, he’s a success in every sense. Some might look at him and scoff, I look with admiration. I wish I had that, to each their own I guess.”
Peterson has been on anti-depressants for years by his own admission. But then the grass is always very much greener when hero worship is at stake.
Matty also takes issue with my accusation that Peterson dodges the issue of biological reality.
“This is false, in fact it’s so untrue it’s almost laughable. Not only did he come down firmly on the side of James Damore, who was fired for explaining biological facts,”
This is not evidence to dispute my claim. It is purely coincidental that part of the reason that Damore was fired was because Damore himself came close to approaching the issue. Peterson supporting Damore does not ipso facto mean that Peterson must then support the idea of biological reality. This is entirely fallacious.
“but he’s even touched on race, genetics and IQ. Then there’s the infamous lobster interview where he literally says we share the biology of a lobster that determines our place in the social hierarchy.”
Comparing the human race with lobster hierarchies says next to nothing about human racial preferences and prejudices. Peterson has also demonstrated a serious lack of understanding of IQ distribution spreads so anything that he says on the subject must be treated with great caution. And touching on race is exactly what Peterson does; he approaches it but then backs right away from where it will lead him.
Peterson is a globalist, no matter what Matty may claim. Peterson claims that he is against identity politics, but identity politics are crucial as Vox Day points out:
“You know I’ve said repeatedly that the philosophy Jordan Peterson is pushing is an evil one, and it is, and one aspect of that evil, one way that we know that it is wrong, is that he and Shapiro and all these other Fake Opposition members are saying “oh all that matters is the individual, all that matters is you, you should only pay attention to your own needs, your own standards, you’ve no right to take pride in your legacy, you have no responsibility to instill those traditions and values into your children.”
“After all, if you have no responsibility to carry on the work of your parents, if you have no right to take pride in the legacy and the achievement of your parents, then neither do your children have any right or responsibility to do so with regards to you! I mean this is a very obvious transitive principle of logic at work, and so I think that it’s so important to understand that when conservatives are coming out against identity politics, you need to understand that they are simultaneously coming out against family values, tribal values, and national values.”
Vox then uses the following series of Peterson quotes to make his point:
“Those who have accomplished something as individuals feel no need to be proud of their race.”
– Jordan Peterson
“Real cultural appropriation — that’s when someone is proud of his culture despite having done nothing to support it, extend it or transform it: a message to the far right.”
– Jordan Peterson
“You shouldn’t be “proud” of your culture: you should be honored by the privilege of partaking in it, and grateful for its existence, despite your inadequacy. That is not at all the same thing.”
– Jordan Peterson
“Q: What’s the goal of the radical right? A: Unearned identity with the glories of the past.”
– Jordan Peterson
“Now the right-wing identitarians have their panties in a knot about what I’ve said about the pathology of racial pride…. Demonstrating (as if it is necessary) that the mirror reflection of malevolence is also…. malevolence.”
– Jordan Peterson
Peterson is an active proponent and participant in the self-destruction of Western Civilization through his ideological adherence to the narcissistic cult of the individual and in his continued attempts to sever the connections that bind people through culture and race. This is bad enough but the fact that he is also a very big wolf in sheep’s clothing makes him much more dangerous than your average progressive nutjob screaming for the head of every straight white man.
It behooves us as seekers of truth and defenders of the legacy that has been passed to us by our ancestors to thoroughly examine anyone who makes such broad reaching claims as Peterson does. The fact that not only do his claims not stack up but that a closer examination reveals someone who is entirely discreditable should be deeply alarming to anyone even remotely interested in defending our civilization and way of life from those that would have it destroyed and us replaced.
I have nothing against Matty personally. But on this subject I believe that he is wrong and it is important that I clearly state why that is the case. After that I leave it up to each reader’s judgement to decide the issue for himself. Pick and choose the good bits from Peterson most certainly. After all he has sprinkled them through his teachings like confetti. But just make sure that you can tell the difference between those and the ramblings of a charlatan who is addicted to twisting the world so that he can better function in it.
This article was originally published at https://pushingrubberdownhill.com/, where Adam Piggott publishes regularly and brilliantly. You can purchase Adam’s books here.
Photo by Fraser Mummery 
