The short video below is the latest of many dozens of interviews that Jordan Peterson has given over the last year, yet it stands out as one of the very few that were conducted by a reporter that was either hostile towards, or largely clueless about, Peterson's agenda. In their short write-up on their website,
Vice News describes Peterson's book,
12 Rules for Life, as "a mix of pop psychology and self-help" which, for anyone familiar with the book or Peterson's work, tells you all you need to know about Vice News.
The interview with Peterson is less than 6 minutes long, yet even in that short period of time, the Vice reporter manages to expose his own ignorance while Peterson conveys the depth of his thinking on the issues of the #metoo movement, sexual harassment in the workplace and 'political correctness' in general.
The Vice reporter gets straight to the point when he suggests that political correctness in universities is confined to university campuses and that it is not "
veering towards apocalypse". Peterson points out that "
it's spreading into corporations throughout the US via HR departments". Which is true. The reporter counters with "
yes, but in what ways that are not 'hey, how about you not grab the ass of your coworker..."
Peterson gives the example of NBC
regulating hugging among employees. The reporter suggested that this was "
a response to generations of men taking advantage". Peterson tries to help him understand the deeper point, that "
it's not easy to solve a complicated problem and ready-made ideological solutions don't work, they make it worse", which the reporter ignorantly dismisses as "
just a maxim", when it clearly is not in this instance, because it directly relates to the deeper point Peterson is making.
So Peterson again tries to explain by saying that it's not about a single question but a series of questions that no one is posing. He then offers one of those questions: "
Can men and women work together?" This is an important question, but the Vice reporter thinks it's ludicrous: 'Of course men and women can work together!' The Vice reporter works with many women! Yet the point is that, if employers have to resort to regulating hugging between workers, then the fundamental question of whether or not men and women can work together SHOULD be asked, because that is what is implied by taking the step of regulating hugging.
And where do we draw the line? If employers regulate hugging, but men still 'harass' women in some way, what is the next step? What is the last step? Segregation? If so, have we not then answered the question of whether or not men and women can work together? Let's assume no one wants to go there. So how do we solve this alleged problem that has all of Western society in its thrall? Peterson asks another of the unasked questions relating to 'sexual harassment' in the workplace, which must be asked if the problem is to be
properly addressed and solved: "Should women wear makeup in the workplace?" The Vice reporter laughs at what strikes him as an outrageous question. But it's not.
The source of sexual harassment in the workplace (and elsewhere) is men, right? NBC has taken the step of regulating hugging between coworkers in an effort to prevent lecherous men from exploiting women. Is that going to work? Maybe, maybe not. But if the goal is to sexually sanitize the workplace, we need to look at all possible factors contributing to the problem. One factor, clearly, is women who wear makeup to work. Peterson explains, accurately, the reason (most) women wear makeup: to increase their sexual attractiveness to men.
Why would women continue to do that if their declared goal is to prevent unwanted sexual advances? The answer, of course, is that women would continue to do that if they are completely unaware of their own primitive biological drives, supplanting the reality of those drives with a carefully crafted (albeit unconscious) narrative of innocence and purity that dumps responsibility for sexual attraction at the feet of men only.
Peterson thinks not just one step ahead, but many. He does his best to see where ideas, and especially ideologies, will lead societies, and demands that everyone adhering to or promoting an ideology be damn sure they have thought seriously about the possible or probable destination. No one can be 100% sure about the end result of an ideology, but only a fool would disregard the lessons of history, particularly those of the 20th century, when in a very short period of time, major ideologies swept human societies down the road to massive death and suffering.
That death and suffering didn't just come out of nowhere. Each step was preceded by a smaller step that made tragedy just a tad more possible than it was before. Often those steps took the form of new, vaguely defined "crimes" that seemed to make sense at the time and address a real issue, but which were then applied in truly Kafka-esque fashions that even their supporters didn't see coming. That is what is happening today, and that is what Peterson is bringing attention to. For example, no one disagrees that rape is abhorrent, but rape has been steadily stripped of its semantic content to the point that it can now apply to consensual sex that the woman decides she didn't want at any time after the act, whether the next day, or weeks or months later. The same goes for "harassment", which can now be applied to any behavior the "victim" finds offensive, including any form of unwanted sexual attention. That can be a well-intentioned hug, an awkwardly phrased request for a date, or a look that lingers for a second too long.
Feminists like the Vice reporters may think that it's a good thing that such behaviors are being steadily responded to with stronger and stronger consequences for the "offender". But what such feminists don't seem to realize - or don't seem to care about - is that by putting the onus of proof on the accused instead of the accuser, any man (and in the future, any woman) may find themselves accused of crimes they simply did not commit. That makes everyone a potential offender. All it takes is an accusation, a denunciation. That is a very dangerous step to take. And unfortunately for all of us, we're already well on our way.
Too many times in the past, human society has sleepwalked into massive upheaval and suffering. Very few saw what was coming and attempted to avert disaster. Most didn't even realize their predicament until the point of no return had been passed. If we are to avoid yet another repeat of history, people like Peterson are desperately needed to sound the warning bell
well ahead of time.
Reader Comments
I chose you for who you are naturally and you chose me for I'am. I love you baby.
But all of this is a 'good' thing, as it 'mirrors' society to itself... allowing or rather forcing it to see its 'dark' or 'ugly' side... it's 'weak' points previously ignored, forgotten, etc... hard to step forward with your feet tied behind you.... and every avenue is getting it's reality check these days in the USA, if not the 'West'...
On another note, bringing up JP's comment on make-up and how far down the rabbit hole PC can and will go. Then the next question will be: at what time companies are forced or adopt uniforms? I don't mean like trade companies that wear coveralls like a Janitor, but like a Bank where executives, managers and general employees each have a different set or all the same.
By the way, will peoplekind be replacing humankind in dictionnarys ?
I am sure the younger generation would have to look up the definition of a dictionary first. Unless,of course, there is an App for that [which there probably is].
Well seems that is coming soon.
Yeah! I see the need to draw attention to the seriously ridiculous, as above so below, and it’s a very strange age were heading into... it’s a surreal future nightmare really.
I remember a guy who asked his father who escaped Nazi Germany, ‘How did they take control,’ the reply was simply that, nobody took them seriously in the beginning. (forget reference) Well were at point in history when a dummy in a fancy car is launched into space, that’s a reflection of the society we live in... is it too late?
Yeah! There’s always the ‘Go Tidy Your Room,’ meme... and what’s going on while a great many are there in that proverbial bubble... time will tell, I hope it’s more than something like ‘the secret,’ or just another thing people get excited over like a Tamagachi craze while the world continues to go to hell, but maybe that’s ok, who needs a hug or even man hug anyway, life is suffering... and it is.
I think that was one of Oprah's, OMG, but hey, what's the damn difference? LOL.
In some ways a bit of character like yours, at least in terms of your agreeableness. Not a clone, one Highland is plenty.
The argument would be made by some women that they should be able to "look nice" if they want, and that's fine. But it ignores the fact that there are deeper, underlying reasons (both societal and sexual). We are given examples of sexual harassment from Hollywood and other public personalities, but let's be honest here: that's been going on for ages. Generally speaking, famous people don't do the same things as "normal" people. Normal people get married, make babies, and have families.
Personally, I am DEEPLY offended by the idea that men are groping pigs, and we need new rules and laws to stop them. Even worse than that are the clueless and weak men who actually support this nonsense. Well, I suppose maybe some men support it because they know how weak they have been in the past, but it would be a grave mistake for anyone to assume that all men are like that. In any case, pray I never meet you in a dark alley somewhere...
I have never done any of the things that some of these men have done, and I never will. And yet, in an era where "being offended" is like the Most Important Thing in the World, no one cares about how I - and the majority of men like me - feel about all of it. Go figure.
So, the discussion we need to have is not the one some people are pushing. What we need to talk about is exactly what JP is bringing up: as a society, should we eliminate "women should look nice" from the workplace? Should we also allow men to come in to work unshaven and wearing potato sacks? Would that fix everything? There are many productive questions we could be asking, but hardly anyone is asking them. Instead, everyone simply enjoys insulting Matt Damon for saying something that amounts to common sense.
Banning hugs is like saying, "Let's ban empathy and compassion! That'll fix everything!"
Well, no, it won't. It'll make everything worse.
In summary, it's probably a good idea to keep in mind that historically, men build everything. We maintain everything. The world goes because we make it go. We also start most of the wars. Do you really want to alienate and piss off that particular group of human beings? Because historically, that never ends well.
JP knows this all too well, and that is one of the reasons why he's killing himself to give men (and women) a better way, and a different perspective on what we all need. And that's exactly why SOTT keeps posting articles about all of it: because it's way more important and dangerous than everyone (apparently) realizes.
Take that away, and what do you think's gonna happen?
Furthermore, men traditionally look to women for social and emotional insight and stability. The family - which is a fundamental and insanely important social structure - is essentially driven and maintained by women.That's no small contribution to society as a whole on the part of women! So again, take that away, and what do you get?
Both halves are required to make the whole actually function properly. Mess with that, and good luck to us all...
As kids we played house. Because we knew the single people didn't have anything close to what a family had.
3 great meals a day, warm roof over my head pets many friends and more
Then came running water and electricity.
The home stuff got left behind. The sexes didn't need each other as much...
Lately guys and gals don't seem to like each other. How sad.
@Scott:
Actually, what we need is a bunch of Jordan Peterson clones.
Luckily, Sott is working together with the Chinese government to produce the necessary number.
China is very good at making cheap clones and copies of good stuff and selling them wholesale or at a discount to the well-heeled and virtuous American people. They do this by employing their cheap labor to the max. This is very efficient.
If you shake Jordan Peterson's hand or are the recipient of one of his sneezes, please be sure to save his sweat or his snot and send the sample to Sott, who can then forward it to the People's Republic of China.
Thank you.
(sarcasm)
ned, out
What is on Jordan Peterson's hands?
Actually any type of body fluid will do.
Only a small sample of DNA is needed.
It could be shit.
I am not against Sott. I have lasted here as a commenter, a long time. That is amazing.
I am not against Jordan Peterson. I think he has some good points and some courage, though that is just a very cursory view, from me, because I am not that interested in the latest big newsmaker.
I am not very fond of China, however.
Or any other large organized mass. These masses represent cancer.
That is all.
Have a good one everybody.
The sun is nearly up here.
Gotta go.
ned,
out
Is it not enough to simply have an apparatus where people can report sexual harassment? You can't regulate human behavior. When will this gaggle of idiots learn this INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS detail. The lecherous will be lecherous whether you can effectively regulate them or not. In the mean-time, you irritate the bell curve even more, thus making your workplace undesirable and untenable. I for one have now boycotting working in ANY office - they are all essentially mental wards - no offense to those who still have to work in them.
And I am male and I was a "victim". I was propositioned by a bisexual CEO in 1994 and was subsequently "laid off", losing a company car and my first and best job and a nice salary.
The underlying objective of this incident isn't to get at any information - it's an attack on Peterson. All of this is an attempt to marginalize someone who is wildly influential and a direct threat to the Marxist-totalitarian-globalist agenda.
And how are they all making money? Off the droves of people who still can't see that the glamour of celebrity is nothing more than marketing insanity designed to allure the weak-minded into sitting at home and paying to fantasize about being a celebrity (or being with one).
This then transfers over into the workplace (because people have to spend a lot of time there, so they pack their fantasies up with them), where people are all trying to be 5-dollar movie stars.
To me, it is both absolutely hilarious and completely horrifying at the exact same time. And I bet there are many SOTT readers who see it the same way.
There is a deeper conflict emerging - and that is that more people are realizing that the Wizard is a guy with a lever in his hand. This is causing Hollywood to lose power fast - and that means profit loss. We all know this is happening. They know it is happening, and they are not happy about it.
Tough, I say. Hollywood - you've got a market correction coming. I hope you saved.
Back-ups
(NO Chance )
Let R RIP
I saw the beginning four minutes of a TV morning show this week wherein four women of color went on the rag over a newly unveiled reconstruction of Nefertiti. [Link] She had light, pale skin!!! They were incensed!!! "Nefertiti was black" they raged!! Black, we say!!! She lived in Africa...ergo...she was black!!!! Seriously. I was intrigued. Could they give any bona fide reasons or research on which they predicated their conclusions...other than she lived in Africa and, therefore, was black? The reason I had to listen for four minutes was to suss out their evidence. They had none. They believe in urban legends which have conscripted Egyptian rulers into the black African heritage simply because they believe or say so. Historical research and reading be damned!!
An audience member gave Peterson Solzhenitsyn's 200 Years Together, newly translated into English.
The little clip of the question they showed about Jewish influence is online in its entirety.
It includes Peterson's "answer" which shows Peterson knows!
This is a big deal!!
On YouTube [Link]
Way of the World's analysis, which got his whole channel on youtube banned. Here it is on bitchute [Link]
Here's a mirror on PewTube [Link]
You write some bitchin' articles.
OMG! Sorry!! Humble pie!! My patriarchal male chauvinism slipped out of my mouth! I apologize! I grovel. I lick the dirt. Please don't smack me with your purse!!!
You ask: "What is the next step? What is the last step? Segregation?"
No, the last step is when all the mentally and emotionally castrated white males in Europe and North America live in mortal fear of the Amazons, and decide to sleep with each other instead.
And when that happens, if the white women want to have sex and make babies, their only choice will be to do so with Muslim men, who will wrap them head to toe in black burqas, and if they talk back, will throw them off tenth-floor balconies like they do in Sweden (if they are lucky,) or turn them into Halal Meat by decapitating them (if they are not so lucky.)
It is all part of the destruction of the White Race by certain people who despise all races but their own. It is not an accident of history. It is deliberate. And given the control of the Mainstream media by those people, it is probably going to get worse before it gets better.
- Lemuel.
These psychos will always exploit an opportunity, and in that regard, this is no accident. However, in general, as applied to the consensus, this is all accidental. They do not know what they do.