A - I n f o s
a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists
News in all languages
Last 40 posts (Homepage)
archives of old posts
The last 100 posts, according
The First Few Lines of The Last 10 posts in:
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours |
of past 30 days |
of 2002 |
of 2003 |
of 2004 |
of 2005 |
of 2006 |
of 2007 |
of 2008 |
of 2009 |
of 2010 |
of 2011 |
of 2012 |
of 2013 |
of 2014 |
of 2015 |
of 2016 |
of 2017 |
Syndication Of A-Infos - including
RDF - How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups
(en) wsm.ie: Jordan Peterson & Sam Harris - what brings them together for a tour and why do they attract the far-right.
Fri, 27 Jul 2018 08:00:10 +0300
Jordan Peterson is a Canadian scholar who rose to prominence after his statements
concerning a bill passed in Canada (C-16) to prevent trans people from being targeted by
hate propaganda and from being denied services, employment or accommodation on the basis
of their gender expression and identity. Peterson's stance consisted in a slippery slope
argument whereby this kind of law would supposedly lead to people being fined or
imprisoned for not using a trans person's preferred pronouns. By framing the law as an
attack on free speech, Peterson may have mislead many people into thinking that this
fantasy of his was actually what the content of the bill was about. Indeed the Canadian
Bar Association made a lengthy public reply to his concerns (though without naming
Peterson), clearly stating that the bill had been grossly misunderstood.
As it turns out, Jordan Peterson believes that hierarchies of class, gender and race are
ordained by nature. As a direct outcome of this, he denies the existence of white
privilege or patriarchy and is known to believe, along with many fascist organisations,
that ideologies which contradict this perspective are part of a marxist conspiracy
(‘'cultural marxism'') to undermine western values and bring about totalitarianism. With
no sense or irony whatsoever, Peterson suggested that kindergarten educators who
supposedly target children with "postmodern marxist ideologies" should be tried for treason.
Peterson is often perceived as a very original, refreshing and fascinating thinker. This
probably has to do with the fact that instead on relying on the relevant and most up to
date research when talking about a topic, Jordan Peterson's lack of investigation leads
him to resort to a patchwork of heterogeneous references including Christian mythology,
long discredited ideas developed by Jung, irrelevant ethology involving lobsters, and
racist pseudoscience from the previous century. In many ways, he resembles someone who'd
be trying to make a quiche but hasn't been shopping in a long time and so ends up
haphazardly replacing the ingredients with whatever can be scraped from under the fridge.
In this analogy, the quiche stands for any conservative viewpoint Peterson is trying to
Besides his ubiquitous presence in the media, what makes Peterson a serious threat lies in
the fact that a lot of young disenfranchised white men have found his self-help
best-selling book "12 Rules for Life" quite useful. Far from providing a radical critique
of capitalist society and of structural changes worth collectively fighting for to improve
life in general, Peterson provides individualist tricks, quick fixes which conveniently
create the illusion that anyone can go a long way without really challenging the status
quo. But the marginal improvements experienced by following Peterson's 12 rules for life
may convince his followers that he is onto something, that there may be some truth to his
extremely conservative politics. The ingredients are there for a generation of young white
men to develop a sense of identity, the feeling that they belong to a group whose
potential and whose true nature are stifled by "political correctness" and "identity
politics". A group who may, like Peterson, come to believe that women long for domination,
that ‘'lone wolf'' violence will be fixed by compulsory monogamy, and that the
liberalization of divorce laws was a mistake.
What about the other speaker? Sam Harris is an American Islamophobic and imperialist
ideologue known for justifying the United State's wars of aggression in the Middle-East.
He embraces the racist and colonialist discourse according to which the West has a moral
duty to bring democracy to the Middle-East and liberate middle-eastern women. He does so
by painting muslims with a single brush with little regard for political or geopolitical
context and little care for muslim voices and research that contradicts his narrative.
He has argued in favour of torture for counter-terrorism purposes, suggested the racial
profiling of muslims at airports and embraced the same "great replacement" theory as the
far-right saying that "With a few exceptions, the only public figures who have had the
courage to speak honestly about the threat that Islam now poses to European societies seem
to be fascist.". He has argued in favour of limiting the number of muslims in the United
States and has acknowledged that his view is one neo-nazi Richard Spencer would agree with.
Sam Harris also used his popular podcast "waking Up" to amplify and condone the voice of
author Charles Murray, whose 1994 book "The Bell Curve" suggests that blacks and hispanics
are biologically inferior to white people. It is worth saying that Jordan Peterson also
endorsed this long discredited book in an exchange with right-wing YouTuber Stefan
Molyneux . The Bell Curve draws a lot of its content from research financed by the Pioneer
Fund, a white supremacist organisation created in 1937 for "the improvement of the white
race" and led by Richard Lynn, a race psychologist who gave feedback to the authors of The
Bell Curve before publication.
In line with his beliefs on race, Sam Harris also claimed that most of what is said by the
Black Lives Matter movement is "dangerously and offensively irrational". Reducing the
Black Lives Matter movement to the question of police shootings, he went on to claim that
99% of police killings of black people in the United States is a legitimate use of force
and that shootings of innocents are largely due to the fact "people don't understand how
to behave around cops so as to keep themselves safe".
As is often the case when it comes to conservative ideology, Harris downplays the role of
imperialism, slavery, segregation and colonisation when discussing race, preferring to
focus on biological factors as well as on a very simplistic understanding of culture. Just
like Peterson, Sam Harris knows how to convey the feeling that his views are moderate and
nuanced, that they represent the scientific consensus. But at the end of the day, he and
Peterson's contribution has been to bring far-right ideas into the mainstream, ideas that
pose a direct threat to the safety of most of us in society.
Finally Douglas Murray, the "moderator" of the debate, is a British journalist who rejects
the concept of Islamophobia and wrote a book entitled "The strange Death of Europe:
Immigration, Identity, Islam". The title says it all.
By accepting to host such a panel, the multinational telecommunication company Three is
profiting off of the spread of deeply racist and misogynistic ideologies. Since it was
created, the 3arena had exclusively hosted concerts. Whether Three was merely guided by a
profit motive or by an actual complacency toward the views of the panel is something the
company should be pressured to clarify.
Some will argue that this is a matter of free speech, that even if the panel is entirely
right wing and even if it is the only time this venue has ever been used for a political
debate, the fact Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris and Douglas Murray are able to invest such a
stage is surely proof that their ideas are superior and legitimately becoming mainstream.
On the contrary, it should be argued that this is a telling sign that the liberal
marketplace of ideas is no less corrupt than the free-market is as a means to allocate
goods and resources.
In the face of rising fascism across the globe, it is high time for liberals to come to
terms with the fact that the ideologies that spread best aren't necessarily the ones
backed with the best arguments, but often ones that are backed with money, conveniently
elude context, offer simple explanations and use fear and hatred as a currency.
This piece was originally published with a review of the Dublin Harris v Peterson debate
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-Infos Information Center