Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

This is probably one of the hardest questions I've seen Jordan Peterson receive and struggle with. He ended up not answering it, but did thank the questioner for bringing the book 200 Years Together by Solzhenitsyn. to his attention, which he said he intended to read.


Transcript
Q: I have a book by Solzhenitsyn I'd like to give you. Gives book It's 200 Years Together. Last year a couple started translating it into English and put it online. It included all the chapters that they've translated so far. As a Jewish American I think this book is very important for everyone to read. In the book Solzhenitsyn documents the over-representation of Jewish individuals in the NKVD and in Bolshevik leadership. He claims that the ethnic hatred these individuals had for Christians played a role in the Holodomor. Jewish individuals had faced persecution in Ukraine prior to the Bolshevik rise to power. These individuals exacted their revenge on the Christian Ukrainian population. The result was the death of 4 million Christians. The line of good and evil cuts through the heart of every human. One cannot simply say a given ethnic group is evil. Every individual must struggle with the good and the evil in their own heart. That being said, it is important to understand what motivates groups to commit atrocities against other groups, because the previous century has been filled with groups killing other groups. Like the Bolsheviks, Jewish individuals are over-represented in the ownership and senior staffing --

JBP: (interruption, asking if he has a question)

Q: I have a question it will take one second. Like the Bolsheviks, Jewish individuals are over-represented in the ownership and senior staffing of the US news media. The news media also is inexplicably hostile towards Russia. If the current war mongering against Russian Christians is in any way motivated by the same ethnic hatred that motivated the Holodomor, we must face that truth honestly. If Jewish individuals hated Christian Ukrainians enough to starve millions of them to death, could the same thing happen today? Could Jewish individuals use their positions of power to seek out revenge against places like Europe and Russia that have a history of expelling Jews?

(Murmurs and heckling begins to emerge in the audience. JBP moves away and becomes pensive.)

Q: Remember rule 9 (Assume people might know something you don't). Maybe there's something here that you don't know about.

JBP: Yep, yep...

Q: And I am just trying to speak the truth.

JBP: Okay, okay... (inaudible) it's so difficult to disentangle. First of all I haven't read this book (200 Years Together). But I do want to read the book, so thank you for giving me the book. Um... (with regard to answering the question) I can't do it. (Cheers come from some of the audience).

Q: That's okay. Thank you, and you really have changed my life and changed the life of a lot of people. Thank you so much.

Keep in mind that this question was posed to JBP in New York City in January 2018. What I would have pointed out had I been there would be that that exact same media complex that demonizes Russia has gone to great pains to malign and misrepresent Peterson as well. A part of me thinks he may know that subconsciosuly, but sometimes he's really obutse when it comes to foreign policy so it's hard to tell.
 
Keep in mind that this question was posed to JBP in New York City in January 2018. What I would have pointed out had I been there would be that that exact same media complex that demonizes Russia has gone to great pains to malign and misrepresent Peterson as well. A part of me thinks he may know that subconsciosuly, but sometimes he's really obutse when it comes to foreign policy so it's hard to tell.

Sorry, I'm not sure, what's exactly your point? That he decided not to answer the question? Or that you had not been able to deliver your message that you believe would have made a difference and opened his eyes? Both? Neither?
 
Keep in mind that this question was posed to JBP in New York City in January 2018. What I would have pointed out had I been there would be that that exact same media complex that demonizes Russia has gone to great pains to malign and misrepresent Peterson as well. A part of me thinks he may know that subconsciosuly, but sometimes he's really obutse when it comes to foreign policy so it's hard to tell.
JPB knows the price he had to pay by telling the truth about the feminist, postmodernist, liberal lobbies, maybe he knows he would have to pay a far higher price if he was to tell the truth about the greatest lobbies of all.
 
Sorry, I'm not sure, what's exactly your point? That he decided not to answer the question? Or that you had not been able to deliver your message that you believe would have made a difference and opened his eyes? Both? Neither?

I shared this because I thought it was an interesting interaction, and not just because he declined to answer. I'm not sure at all why you would infer the latter point from the above, personally.

JPB knows the price he had to pay by telling the truth about the feminist, postmodernist, liberal lobbies, maybe he knows he would have to pay a far higher price if he was to tell the truth about the greatest lobbies of all.

That's kind of the feeling I got too. He did try his utmost to be diplomatic and respectful. Sometimes not answering is also answering too I think.
 
JPB knows the price he had to pay by telling the truth about the feminist, postmodernist, liberal lobbies, maybe he knows he would have to pay a far higher price if he was to tell the truth about the greatest lobbies of all.


Why does anyone think he had to answer that at all?
 
I shared this because I thought it was an interesting interaction, and not just because he declined to answer. I'm not sure at all why you would infer the latter point from the above, personally.
/.../
That's kind of the feeling I got too. He did try his utmost to be diplomatic and respectful. Sometimes not answering is also answering too I think.

Thank you for the answer whitecoast, I really wasn't sure what was the focal point in your post.

The problem with the asker, as I see it, is that his question was so loaded that it would take a long time to fully dissect it. In brief, he starts with a 'troubling' topic, then identifies himself to put JP's mind in peace, represents Solzhenitsyn's book in a simplistic way (in the best case), presents one of its thesis as he sees it (the Holodomor was a religious war), then offers a cookie (individual responsibility, not a tribal one, I know what you teach), and finally asks for predicting the future. Wow.

If you start answering the question, you've more or less accepted the supposition.

But it wasn't "Jewish individuals [who] hated Christian Ukrainians enough to starve millions of them to death". There were many factors involved: crop failure, disastrous Bolshevik/ Stalin's regime, a necessity to keep exporting crops to rebuild the country after several wars, etc... Historians still argue if the Holodomor was a deliberate policy against the Ukrainian people. Many more non-Ukrainian people (Russian, Kazahs and other ethnic groups) died at that time from starvation than Ukrainians, so it was hardly directed against that one nation. But like with the Katyn massacre (Soviets did it - Germans did it), admissions and accusations come and go depending on the political wind. It's quite likely, that some Jews saw it as an opportunity to pay back for their past oppression. But what, if there had been no Jews in the NKVD, the Holodomor wouldn't have happened? Really? The "over-representation" is another problematic argument.

I like the way Antony Sutton approached this kind of thinking in the Appendix to his "Wall Street And The Bolshevk Revolution" excellent book:

There is an extensive literature in English, French, and German reflecting the argument that the Bolshevik Revolution was the result of a "Jewish conspiracy" [...] Generally, world control is seen as the ultimate objective; the Bolshevik Revolution was but one phase of a wider program that supposedly reflects an age-old religious struggle between Christianity and the "forces of darkness." [......]

There is no concrete evidence that Jews were involved in the Bolshevik Revolution because they were Jewish. There may indeed have been a higher proportion of Jews involved, but given tsarist treatment of Jews, what else would we expect? There were probably many Englishmen or persons of English origin in the American Revolution fighting the redcoats. So what? Does that make the American Revolution an English conspiracy? Winston Churchill's statement that Jews had a "very great role" in the Bolshevik Revolution is supported only by distorted evidence. The list of Jews involved in the Bolshevik Revolution must be weighed against lists of non-Jews involved in the revolution. When this scientific procedure is adopted, the proportion of foreign Jewish Bolsheviks involved falls to less than twenty percent of the total number of revolutionaries — and these Jews were mostly deported, murdered, or sent to Siberia in the following years. [...]

The persistence with which the Jewish-conspiracy myth has been pushed suggests that it may well be a deliberate device to divert attention from the real issues and the real causes. ... What better way to divert attention from the real operators than by the medieval bogeyman of anti-Semitism?

In a similar way, it's somehow easier to see a foreign hand in this kind of disaster than a hand of your owns. Perhaps that's a partial reason why Solzhenitsyn wrote the "200 Years" book.

I don't know whether JP just didn't want to touch this 'sensitive' topic (which would be understandable, he has to choose his battles) and was aware that his knowledge here was limited, or he saw a whole mine field in the question, but I think not answering it was a wise decision.
 
Why does anyone think he had to answer that at all?

I think, by virtue of the fact that he is a public speaker, JP must realize that some very uncomfortable questions may be thrown his way. For his own credibility, I think, he must have at some stage devised a ploy wherein he will avoid "too hot to handle" questions. His saying he had not yet read the book could be one such ploy.OSIT
 
JPB knows the price he had to pay by telling the truth about the feminist, postmodernist, liberal lobbies, maybe he knows he would have to pay a far higher price if he was to tell the truth about the greatest lobbies of all.
Some have been willing to pay that price and then got a phone call saying "You're fired". Here we have it addressed in a Huffington article,

Former CIA agent Phil Giraldi talks too much
The reality is that the author could have talked about it being the neocons driving policy. Or he could have talked about The Heritage Foundation driving policy. But he didn't -- he talked about "the Jews" driving policy. He could have talked about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Trump, their Secretaries of Defense, Secretaries of States, NSC Directors, and Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff not only driving policy but directing policy and actually, literally running the wars. Indeed, if Bush/Cheney/Trump listen to advice, it's their choice who they bring into their circle for opinion in order to support their own aims But the author didn't -- he talked about "The Jews" driving policy...and "The Jews" controlling the media. All he left out were the horns. The author could have asked, "Does the Heritage Foundation drive America's Wars?" But he didn't. He made it about "the Jews." And further, though he's writing only about the Iraq War, and possible war with Iran, he indicts Jews on a much wider landscape for driving "America's Wars."

I'd love to see what would happen if JP was asked about Hispanic Gangs or the Italian Mafia in the US. Would he have tiptoed calmly around the subject and moved on to a different subject ?

The whole subject reminds me of a song "Tiptoe Through The Tulips",

PS: Shock :-OMy mind was focused on the word "Tiptoe through the tulips" in the lyrics. I had no clue that this guy was the composer of it. That is doubly funny.
 
After reading this article,

Off with her head
I am starting to think that JP is one smart cookie. If he tried to address the question he would have lost immediately. Just look at the benign words of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) which seem to have started a fire storm in DC. Did she try to get "off the reservation" ?

I'm also starting to think that perhaps someone may have tried to set him up. JP is going against the grain and it is not out of the question that someone would try to create a situation which would have him fall on his face. This may have been one such attempt.
 
I'm also starting to think that perhaps someone may have tried to set him up. JP is going against the grain and it is not out of the question that someone would try to create a situation which would have him fall on his face. This may have been one such attempt.

"A set-up" was the first thought that flashed through my mind when I saw the original video. The question came so out of left field given the previous ones. I think from the audience reaction, at least some of them felt it was too. JP has said on many occasions that his work is not political, but about helping people. His lectures are not supposed to be interviews. The lecture audiences resent it when someone tries to drag politics in.

I think he handled it in the best way possible. His answer was an impeccable one for a scholar, and completely truthful.
 
The question came so out of left field given the previous ones. I think from the audience reaction, at least some of them felt it was too. JP has said on many occasions that his work is not political, but about helping people. His lectures are not supposed to be interviews. The lecture audiences resent it when someone tries to drag politics in.

That that "sudden jump" in subjects also makes me think it was a provocation. History and politics is not his field. Granted politics spills into his areas of interest but delving into "who is behind what" will do nothing for the core ideas that he is trying to convey to his audience. That "subject" is almost another Universe. To make sure you organize your room does not require that you know what happens in it.
 
"A set-up" was the first thought that flashed through my mind when I saw the original video. The question came so out of left field given the previous ones. I think from the audience reaction, at least some of them felt it was too. JP has said on many occasions that his work is not political, but about helping people. His lectures are not supposed to be interviews. The lecture audiences resent it when someone tries to drag politics in.

I think he handled it in the best way possible. His answer was an impeccable one for a scholar, and completely truthful.


For me, it's the baits he put in his question that made me think it could have been a trap. He didn't have to use Solzhenitsyn - there is plenty of books and essays talking about the same and some are even more relevant to the question he was about to ask. But everyone knows JP highly values "The Gulag Archipelago", so it was much more likely he would accept the 'conclusion' of another AS's book. His identification as a Jew was another one, and the remarks about individual responsibility yet another. His calling the Rule nr 9 and the "I am just trying to speak the truth" remark as the last resort to make JP answer can read as "Come on, I'm one of your followers, nothing to be afraid of, hey, just take the bait for God's sake!". IF he was sincere and just stupid enough to think it was a good idea, he hardly could made it worse and more manipulative.
 
Last edited:
Well looks like France has "arrived" in the New World.

In the latest example of political correctness run amok in Europe, the French National Assembly this week passed an education reform bill which included a controversial amendment to replace all instances of the words 'mother' and 'father' on official school-related paperwork with the 'gender neutral' phrases "Parent 1" and "Parent 2".

The bill, which was championed by President Emmanuel Macron's party, will also make school attendance mandatory for all three-year-olds.
"This amendment aims to root in law children's family diversity in administrative forms submitted in school," said REM minister Valérie Petit.
"We have families who find themselves faced with tick boxes stuck in rather old-fashioned social and family models. For us, this article is a measurement of social equality."
While the changes were made ostensibly to stop discrimination against same-sex parents, according to the Christian Post, the measure has been attacked by conservatives and liberals alike. Even the French education minister opposed the amendment.

In a sign of just how fraught with controversy this provision has become, even the president of the French association for same-sex parents has criticized the decision, arguing that it could create a "parental hierarchy".
Off the Reservation
I wonder if there will be an issue with who is chosen as number 1 and number 2 ? There could be discrimination involved in these choices.
 
Back
Top Bottom