An Anarchist Response to Far-Right Professor Jordan Peterson

  • Posted on: 22 May 2018
  • By: thecollective


The following is a critique of the popular far-Right and ‘self-help’ guru Jordan Peterson. Most recently, Peterson argued that the State should enforce monogamy as a way to end young, male, ‘lone-wolf’ violence. Peterson represents the push towards a fundamental restructuring of society that re-cements the power of patriarchy, social hierarchy, and the State.

“Take responsibility for your own life!,” shouts psychology professor, Youtuber and self-help guru Jordan Peterson, capturing the collective imagination of the crowd of starry eyed young men seated before him. As he goes on, the banal platitudes begin to accumulate, “Life is suffering, so get your act together!,” “Clean your room!,” and “Make your bed!”

Peterson claims to be tapping into and addressing the alienation expressed by thousands of young men with his self-help philosophy. He blames third wave feminism, the dissolution of the quintessential male archetype and a lack encouragement for signs of a disaffected population of young men who are experiencing increasing university dropout and suicide rates relative to women. Indeed, one only has to mention the term “young men” for Peterson to dissolve into tears during interviews, bemoaning the “postmodern neo-Marxists” who’s claim that Western Civilization is a patriarchal hierarchy allegedly undermines the fragile archetypical male. Here, Peterson references a far-Right conspiracy theory commonly associated with fascism, but for now, let’s focus on the question of personal responsibility.

What does Peterson mean when he says we should take responsibility for our own lives? In an interview on ABC news Australia where Peterson lays out his philosophy, the interviewer pushes back, pointing out that some people face difficult circumstances in life, which makes it harder to take responsibility. Peterson agrees, responding with: “Life is very difficult and we all die… well, what’s the alternative, you take responsibility for that and try to struggle uphill because the alternative makes everything worse.”

With this, Peterson cuts down to an existential truth; in the face of suffering, an individual can either choose to accept suffering and fight to reduce it by seeking-out meaning, or remain complacent. He cites existential reasons for why we ought to seek responsibility, arguing that we are defined by our burdens and that we should, “Carry the biggest rock we can find.” Here, I agree with Peterson’s logic and have personally encountered similar sentiments in a critique of Bartelbyism and hopelessness published in the anarchist blog, Research & Destroy:

Most of the theoretical expressions that emerge from this confused condition share a fundamental misidentification of effects as causes. Identifying the source of their unhappiness in their own naïve optimism and commitment, their investment in some political project or process, they reason that, in order to spare themselves future suffering, they must cease to hope, to commit, to desire, they must treat each new event as dead from the start. They conclude not only that disaffection and pessimism will cause us to suffer less in the face of the failure of struggles, but that optimism, earnest commitment, investment, are the source of these failures. In other words, they reason that the reason we lose is because we keep trying, despite the fact that it is obviously the other way around.

To seek out responsibility and meaning in the face of suffering and to fight against the forces that perpetuate one’s suffering is both empowering and perhaps a more rational course of action given one’s own beliefs of what the world should look like.

However, Peterson draws an arbitrary line between individuals who pull themselves up by their proverbial bootstraps within the confines of the status quo and activists who seek to alter or dismantle it altogether, revealing a deep-seated political bias that belies a consistent application of his own message. Peterson focuses on the erosion of the male archetype as a model of meaning for all men (a doubtful prospect) while ignoring the structural conditions that cause many individuals, including men, to suffer from an utter lack of agency and self-determination.

He justifies his disdain for activism with the empty platitude, “Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world,” completely missing the fact that human experiences are shaped by external conditions and that addressing these conditions is not only an exercise of personal responsibility but also a way of expanding the sphere of individual autonomy and responsibility. In order for people to actively take responsibility for their own lives (rather than passively accepting it), they must feel empowered to contribute to their own personal development, friendships, families and communities. Both the State and capitalism, institutions lauded by Peterson, obfuscate individual responsibility and prevent individuals from finding meaning in their day-to-day activities.

Peterson himself admits that, “Our culture has oppressive elements to it, it’s not completely fair” (emphasis on the word “culture”), while disparaging activists who actually take responsibility for their own lives by fighting back against socioeconomic and structural forms of oppression that limit their sphere of action such as as racism, patriarchy, transphobia and the State.

For many trans activists, the search for meaning manifests itself as a fight to validate their own existence; trans people are murdered and sexually assaulted at a far higher rate than the rest of the population and are vilified in almost all walks of like. For Peterson (although he might not admit it or phrase it this way), the only oppressed group worthy of recognition is “young men,” who are, according to him, being silenced by campus “social justice warriors” with accusations of racism and bigotry — an utterly absurd claim. It is ironic that one of the far-Right’s favorite insults to hurl at leftists is “snowflake.”

Drawing an arbitrary line in the sand at activism reveals Peterson for what he is, not a herald of the new far-Right “counterculture,” but a hypocritical representative of the neo-liberal status quo who’s rebranding of traditionalism, use of fascist dog-whistles and glorification of toxic masculinity has earned him a major following amongst the Alt-Right. Peterson paradoxically finds himself in direct opposition to those who would seek to truly foster an environment of personal responsibility by expanding individual autonomy and delegating greater responsibility to the individual by dismantling illegitimate, authoritarian modes of governance.

At this point it is important to further clarify the concept of “personal responsibility.” Responsibility is derived from our capacity for action. Every individual with agency is responsible for their actions regardless of their circumstances. For example, a murderer is typically held responsible for their actions even after we take into account the underlying conditions that compelled them to commit the crime. Similarly, each of us is responsible for our own decisions. That said, underlying socioeconomic conditions, authoritarian modes of organization and centralized power structures can take away responsibility from people or prevent them from feeling a sense of responsibility by shrinking their sphere of influence until it is virtually non-existent. As people begin to doubt the efficacy and meaning behind their actions, they begin to feel alienated and lose their sense of personal responsibility.

Structuralist philosophers such as Marx sought to identify underlying socioeconomic constructs that explain and predict the behavior and sentiments of the average individual. Structures such as such as racism, transphobia, statism and capitalism serve to negate the impact people of certain groups can make in the world. Peterson accuses leftists of focusing on groups while ignoring the individual, conveniently forgetting that groups are made of individuals and that in these cases, group autonomy translates to individual autonomy.

So, let us return to the original question, under the status quo, can we individually choose most of our actions and shape our own circumstances? The answer is no. We live inside a framework of institutionalized rule via classes, bosses, owners and the State.

Authoritarian modes of governance, from representative democracy to autocracy, force the individual to abdicate responsibility by passing it up or down the chain of command. Individual action is contingent on permission from the institutions and people that control our society and workplaces. From traveling across an imaginary line in the sand, to starting a new project at work, getting an education and in some cases, using the bathroom, our actions are dictated by faceless, impersonal institutions and socioeconomic conditions that fall outside our control.

In these cases, an individual is only responsible for choosing between blindly follow orders or putting themselves in opposition to systemic domination, which is exactly what we see from activists, many of whom are not making appeals to authority by carrying signs and placards but actively engaging in direct action in order to oppose the centralization of power; physically confronting fascists, destroying fossil fuel infrastructure, hacking, squatting and farming. These aren’t people seeking out “victim status” or special privileges but social equity and personal autonomy. Examples of what I mean span from mobilizing at Standing Rock and physically confronting neo-Nazis at their rallies, to forming temporary autonomous zones like Exarchia and ZAD inside the cracks of State hegemony.

Moreover, even when it isn’t entirely abdicated, responsibility is obfuscated by complex bureaucracy, geographically limited by borders, eroded by forced labor and diluted within centralized power structures. Underlying circumstances such as being from a low-income background (data shows that the most important drivers of one’s living standard are determined at birth), lead to individuals being faced with binary choices with only one viable option.

While an individual can always choose to act; taking on student debt and accepting tedious, repetitive jobs for low wages will always be seen as better alternatives to homelessness, social exclusion and even starvation, so it’s easy to get the impression that you’re being dragged through life by the proverbial “invisible hand.” The same applies when an individual is unable to cross a national border in search of a better life or immobilized by legal fees due to a court hearing for drug possession. It is no wonder that young men and other more acutely marginalized groups feel disenfranchised and powerless inside the status quo.

In a society that has abolished every kind of adventure, the only adventure that remains is to abolish that society. – Unknown

To further reinforce my point, let us take the average American millennial as an example. A recent study showed that the average American voter along with mass-based interest groups have little to no-impact on public policy in contrast to the business community. Our millennial subject is likely debt ridden, subject to decisions made by their employer and faced with the choice to either work under a zero-hour contract or homelessness and food insecurity, hence robbing them of any sense of personal freedom. If our millennial was a black person, they would face additional hurdles; studies show that 1/3 of the difference between black and white wages is due to discrimination and that people with “black names” are less likely to receive interviews for jobs than white people after controlling for qualifications.

Black people are more likely to be incarcerated and face longer sentences than white people for the same crimes. When individuals fight back against these systems of oppression they’re actively trying to grow their own power, not the power to dominate others, but to determine their own course of actions and in doing so alter their circumstances.

Beyond the authoritarianism of modern society, individuals are faced with the totalitarian narratives pushed by capitalism. Americans are expected to be patriots and dissenters are labelled “anti-American.” On the other side of the coin, corporations force employees to comply with their culture (people are expected to appear enthusiastic and happy) in spite of their true emotions, alienating employees from their peers and further drowning out individualism. Consumerism serves to reduce individuals into brands, titles and statistics. Peterson praises the status quo by telling his audience they should be grateful for their current standard of living; however, in doing so, he narrows his audience to beneficiaries of capitalism while denying that marginalized groups are really oppressed despite their own contradictory experiences of alienation and statistically evident lack of social mobility. Yes, it might benefit these folks to take responsibility for their lives, but on their own terms, not on Peterson’s limited and prescriptive terms, handily summarized in his self-help book, 12 Rules for Life.

While we’re all ultimately responsible for our own thoughts and actions, the underlying socioeconomic conditions and modes of organization determine how we conceptualize our own sense of responsibility; do we see ourselves as powerless consumers, cogs in a machine, numbers on a spreadsheet or variables inside a social meta-narrative? The manner in which society is organized emphasizes various different conceptions of the individual which are in turn internalized by people. We should aim to structure organizations in ways that encourage freedom of initiative, while addressing issues such as poverty and corporate exploitation. Peterson’s unwillingness to deal with the fact that people are currently oppressed, that this oppression negates individual responsibility and that anger and resentment are perfectly reasonable responses to a complete lack of freedom, speaks to the sheer lack of nuance in his philosophy.

Telling people they should take responsibility for their own lives is great advice; however, I have a different interpretation of this platitude, to me it means wresting back control over our own lives from the bureaucrats, politicians and corporations that dominate society, it means seizing land and capital and pushing the State out of our spaces so we can build a new base for a decentralized society where the individual can freely make decisions without having to appeal to rulers and bosses.



At least get your opponent right to begin with.

everyoneI disagree with is [insert bogeyman here]

everything I like is an example of [insert ideology that I insist isn't ideological here]

compared to leftanarchists hes pretty goddarn 'right'. that being said, it doesnt seem to me to make much sense for an anarchist -especially one with a familiarity with stirner- to quibble over how 'right wing' someone is.

He's really not far right at all. He's basically a centrist.

"enforced monogamy" is not a position anywhere near the center of mainstream political debate you psycho.

not OP. i mean, female autonomy is a relatively new phenomenon, unfortunately. the guy is obviously a rightist, but i feel like he's popular because he's making explicit all the implicit shit that bro dudes always believed to be true.

this article, though, is basically a paint-by-numbers of all the worst aspects of left anarchism. also, the defenses of peterson in this thread are totally fucking misogynist and disgusting, and basically a caricature of individualism gone wrong. and then there's me, just talking shit with nothing to add but to register my disapproval.

no one looks good here is what i'm saying.

actually, i take it back. the article isn't bad, it's just not really saying anything at all. that's more accurate.

Well I think the troll Leway enjoys the reaction he gets from parodying with caricatures the politics Antifa falsify portray him as following, maybe out of some twisted sense of humor, or deviated spite, I dunno.

>not OP. i mean, female autonomy is a relatively new phenomenon, unfortunately. the guy is obviously a rightist, but i feel like he's popular because he's making explicit all the implicit shit that bro dudes always believed to be true.

This is the same reason people like Trump. It is a fascist movement on the whole, making explicit that which was done with some shame before. It is the first step to normalizing, expanding, and strengthening fascist tendencies in society.

and don't think that because commenters on here are some "I'm so unique" egoists, you won't be subject to the same fascist violence at some point. At a later point than those who actually give a shit about other people, but they will come for you too.

what i was trying to say is that the political center has always nurtured the potential for explicit fascism. i may be a cranky post-leftist but that doesn't mean i don't roll with antifa when nazis organize. i was ara back in the day and still show up for the big stuff. note that i do fucking hate the whole "individualists are fascists" thing happening right now, especially at a time when anarchists are finding common ground with fucking leninists. ugh.

skipping over the problems with the left-right spectrum for a second, if you can't see how several of Peterson's explicit positions make a pretty strong case for "far right", your own position might be the problem. Or maybe you're trying to move the overton window, or you're a useful for idiot for somebody else who's trying to move it?

You are looking at associations and not the full context of his positions.

Yes, they do. "Forced monogamy" being the most obvious example of what most reasonable people would consider extreme, misogynistic conservatism but there's many others, like the shameless revamp of hysterical mcarthyism for example.

So, returning to my obviously accurate conclusion about your obviously erroneous one, your problem is that your own position is rather close to Daddy Peterson, making it difficult for you to be objective about this. Now run along ziggy, go argue with someone who has time for your crap.

Forced monogamy is actually the prevalent relationship in many indigenous cultures and as a foundational model in creating a bond in relational and nurturing values in the development of infant consciousness. The definition of 'right' needs recalibration in relation to the dominant Idpol totalitarian model of free indescrimating hedonism monitored under strict neo-Marxist State guidelines, which have made 'gay' the New normative. I have nothing against gay folk per se I find them entertaining and fun people to meet but the organic survival of intrinsic humaninity must not go the path of test tube babies for sexually liberated Idpol fanatics.

why would anyone worry about the breeding program when we're headed to 8 billion soon? Or even dumber worrying about the future of the white race? Miscegenation and liberated sexuality is the way forward into the new zeitgeist. Drop that heavy baggage, put on some music and shake your booty, life is short let's enjoy it.

Ancient Greece was full gay too. But above this, you forgot how some people jut won't desire same-sex people, no matter what brocracy you got in place. Same-sex fucking is fine in my book, but I still do get horny on women, and love touching/being touched by a women, and I don't care how inthe eyes of the LGTBQ fanatics tht makes me a fascist or whatever. Ethics do not define desire and preference.

On the other the fact there are still couples that keep reproducing is one of the things that pisses me off the most, but what does it mean to be turning people gay? More demonization of straight sexuality between consenting partners only leads to more deviances like pedophilia, and sexual violence.

And the ancient Greeks generally grouped as the Athenian allies ended up prancing around espousing gods and myths for what was to become the foundation of democratic collective herd policy and the Spartans, maintaining a rigid aesthetic based on individual strength and self-reliance had to defend their whining weak neighbours from invasion! The Athians realized that teaching boys to be girls wasn't going to help them defend themselves.

get the fuck out of here you fucking nazi. you try to enforce monogamy on me and mine and you'll catch a fucking bullet.

gay is not the "new normative" you poor oppressed hetero. give me a fucking break. your victim complex is not reality, in reality, gay people are still discriminated against and assaulted for being gay all the time. that does NOT happen to hetero people, so shut the fuck up, you whiny snowflake.

Why the FUCK do you give a shit about the "organic survival of intrinsic humanity"???? I care about how INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE are treated HERE AND NOW, not the survival of our species. If *that* is what you have time to worry about, you have tons of privilege and you don't even realize it. The "organic survival of intrinsic humanity" sounds like the sad mewling of an incel future mass shooter trying to convince a girl to sleep with them: we must fuck to ensure the *organic* recreation of our species, not something done with IVF (the horror!!!). Put your shriveled dick back in your pants Romeo.

Grow the fuck up and get your nazi ass off this website.

Re: 17.42

>mewling of an incel future mass shooter
>tons of privilege
>whiny snowflake

You're such a fucking bigot. Is the best you can do to throw insults?

Honestly, I agree with you and not LeWay but this fascistic demonisation makes me hate you and not him. "Snowflake" is an alt-right insult. Incel mass shooters are oppressed people with disabilities who are victims of patriarchy, but you use their disability as an insult. And if homophobia shows privilege then there must be an awful lot of privileged people in Uganda.

You don't reckon it has anything to do with Christian fundamentalism, then?

Or the fact that gay rights is seen as a western import and therefore gets lumped in with everything else in the tradition/modernity binary?

Most of Uganda was already statist before it was colonised by the way.

thecollective, why leave this up? because the broken clock is accidentally right? Just like jordan peterson?

^This was directed at the Le Way troll but then I realized its because so many already took the bait. Nevermind ...


Censoring everything one disagrees with/is offended by, is a good way of creating a desert around oneself. Which has the effect of making enemies, making one's message not reach anyone outside one's existing circle, and encouraging others to also lock themselves into self-enclosed groupthink hugboxes as well.

This process of mutual silencing and isolation favors the powerful - because their groupthink hugbox will be a groupthink hugbox of the powerful.

Even if said offensive statement is 1) generated by structures of social oppression and 2) potentially harmful in perpetuating these (which in this case is barely even true - we're talking about an eco-radical who values indigenous lifeways), it's still counterproductive to simply censor it because it takes away the opportunity to change/rebut said belief through rational argument or other forms of persuasion. It also takes away the opportunity to show third parties that one's own position is defensible, and to hone one's own ability to think clearly, to argue with adversaries, and/or to persuade (all of which are politically important skills).

Regarding forced monogamy you would find that he meant value enforcement. That’s standard right wing talking points and ACTUALLY WHAT EXISTS RIGHT NOW.

You JUST SAID he uses "standard right wing talking points" … because he's a far right pundit, concludes any reasonable person. Except you ziggy, you gotta front with the "special insight".

Does not a far leftist make, ditto for the other direction. As Bellamy has already pointed out he's basically a pro-classical liberal centrist. If there is an overton window you nuts are actually helping your opponents by mislabeling and character assassinating middle of the road types who might be open minded to some aspects of extreme ideology. You do know there were numerous liberals who were sympathetic to the new left back in the day right? That did not make them far left.

You idiots might as well be a fifth fucking column.

"mislabelling and character assassinating"? Nope. Just stating a relatively objective fact that you can't deal with. I accept the issues with the right-left spectrum, I don't actually like using it except to save a bit of time.

You just keep changing the subject but again, most reasonable people would place Peterson far right. Not necessarily burying the needle mind you BUT pretty fucking far to the right. The reality is that you're out there with him on a lot of these social issues so he appears to be a "centrist" because of your own biases.

As Bellamy said he’s gotten emails from people thanking him for taking them off that road. And no 20 I’m not close to him AT ALL. The fact that I don’t lock lips with you turd way turd worldist leftoids does not make me a fucking Peterson fan. If anything I as a POST-LEFTIST want to take him on effectively. There are some good examples of how to take him on from left land such as zero books and the Doug Lane types. IGD is NOT an effective example of good analysis against Peterson. They’re the turd way turd worldist types that reasonable people make fun of and ignore.

Basically dissolving in to your own weird little lexicon at this point. We weren't talking about IGD … or any of these things you brought up. Every major news outlet that covers Peterson acknowledges that he's a slightly updated take on traditional conservative values, it's obvious from the way he talks, it's just not up for debate. You're completely up your own ass on this. I'm not "taking him on" and neither are you. You're just dying on the most random hill ever, all by yourself.

>your own weird little lexicon
>posting on anarchist news
>hasn't heard of post-left before

What are you, some kind of IGD fifty-cent party?

I don't think Ziggy has said that Peterson is anything but right-wing.

He's said that Peterson isn't "far right".

To most people, "far right" means Nazi, fascist, or ultranationalist.

Someone can be right-wing without being "far right". A traditional conservative would not be called "far right" outside of idpol hyperbole.

However, the exact boundary between conservatism and the far right is pretty blurry. So is the boundary between right-wing libertarianism and the far right.

Personally I think Peterson's far right in certain respects (i.e. McCarthyism) but in an ultraconservative rather than a fascist way. I don't find his stuff at all appealing and I'm pretty amazed he has fans among anarchists - though I can also see why it would happen (i.e. he has a strong and sometimes coherent critique of idpol and "postmodernism", and he speaks to the concerns of socially marginal men). Then again, the whole nature of the right, far-right and alt-right is very complicated at the moment because the centre has shifted so far to the right and political discourse is so groupthink-driven and lacking in logical consistency.

A lot of these anti-Petersen types are materialists who believe in 'underlying material conditions'. I'm a psychist not a materialist so I do not subscribe to that leftist marxist nonsense. I think Peterson is wrong to but the above article is not how to take him out. What is needed is a sophisticated psychic multi-structural analysis not a materialist primary structural reductionist one.

Cleaning your room is certainly part of the solution.

Life is joy unless your a horrid human being like you, Le Way. no wonder you are attracted to this fascist Oprah.

I love you this Peterson shit overlaps just enough with the right wing tendencies of some of the more obnoxious and disgusting "egoists" enough to expose their fascist sympathies.

oops i commented in the wrong place :|

edit: apparently not, this website just has a comment system as intuitive as dwarf fortress.

'Peterson accuses leftists of focusing on groups while ignoring the individual, conveniently forgetting that groups are made of individuals and that in these cases, group autonomy translates to individual autonomy.'

personally i do not think that even in these cases group autonomy 'translates' to individual autonomy. they are certainly very closely related, but i at least dont think these concepts are identical. also i will assume by 'translates to’ that you mean 'equates to’ or 'is indentical to', because both words are in english.

in this case, for the two things to be 'identical' implies that you can do some sort of 'reality mathematics’, and add up the ‘autonomy values’ of each individual, and so arrive at the ‘group autonomy’. if so, then where did you find the ‘autonomy values’? or, more accurately, where did you make them? and how do you put them together to get ‘group autonomy’? do you take the sum, weighted sum, or the mean?

since those questions would obviously elicit many different answers from different people -anarchists dont always agree-, any claim to have access to ‘the one truth’ would seem rather unanarchist and a smidge ‘totalitarian’ *dun-dun-duuuuun*. it would need some serious and rather profound convicing for it to have any affect tho, so i gues we need to concentra… aaand you just made a religion. yall gonna be one of those ones that have gods, or the ones who have ‘definitely-not-gods-but-we-make-statues-of-them-and-worship-them-anyway’?

because really, if these concepts were translatable, one wouldnt be a plural, and the other singular. because thats the key difference here, one is many things -i.e. many individuals-, and the other is one thing -i.e. the group-. if this wasnt the case, you wouldnt need a concept of ‘group autonomy’, you would talk about just that, talk of individuals autonomy, i.e. 'individual autonomy' in the plural. because in the real world -unlike mathematics- one big thing isnt ‘equivalent’ to lots of small things. compare the experience of being hit with lots of bb’s vs a 9mm bullet, for example. to be honest i get very suspicious when people start trying to do reality mathematics.
tired of being oppressed? try this one weird trick! current situation + organising = @@@ ! click h͟e͟r͟e͟ to find out more

that being said anonymous contributor from igd, i really like the piece. its a good critique of the impotence, inanity, and ineffectiveness present in jordan peterson’s ideology. for instance, the excellent point that authoritarians often claims to sacrifice individual freedom for the sake of the group, and therefore to sacrifice freedom now for some sort of mystical future True Freedom™ that is just around the corner, i promise*! its nice to see the leftist perspective argued for with elegance and nuance… even if ultimately i think lots of your views contradict each other, *and* attempt to pull off sweet one liners whilst doing so.

So, transphobia is as significant a force in the world as capitalism?

"So, transphobia is as significant a force in the world as capitalism?"

that would depend on the context of whoever you are asking, wouldn't it? unless you deny the relevance of individuals, and all you can see/think of is "the world".

When it comes to transphobia people whod otherwise deny such structuralism are ready to embrace it as a way to dismiss its significance in some individuals lives.

1000% this.

because some people find self-actualization in being reactionary and contrarian to anything they come across in life, as if that somehow makes them smart.

>that would depend on the context of whoever you are asking, wouldn't it?
>a way to dismiss its significance in some individuals lives.

Lupus Dragonowl is right. Idpol is caught between realism and perspectivism.

"Significance in individuals' lives" is either objective (realist) or subjective (perspectivist). If it's subjective then one can say that transphobia is as big a deal as capitalism, but one also has to say that misandry and white genocide are just as big a deal since they subjectively matter as much to some people. If it's objective then one can say that transphobia is a real oppression whereas white genocide isn't, but one also has to recognise that it might be less structurally basic than capitalism (or statism, or civilisation).

People can't see beyond the end of their noses nowadays. Even if something is the most important oppression in your life, this doesn't mean it's the most structurally important oppression. And in reality of course, people's experiences and being filtered by their belief-systems, so someone's perception that they're suffering "transphobia" and this is a bigger source of distress or life-risk than capitalism or the state may not necessarily be accurate.

IMO there is nothing in Stirnerian egoism which precludes structuralist theorising, provided the theorising in question is empirical (descriptions of how the world works) and not ethical (obligations to act in certain ways). Stirnerians live by their own ethos which stems from their uniqueness. There's no universal laws to which they're subject. But empirical analysis changes the application of ethical principles (e.g. if you've settled on a principle not to kill others, it also matters whether a given substance is poisonous). Most Stirnerian egoists will wish to strike against or evade spook-ridden structures which interfere with egoistic action. One is in a natural relation of enmity with these structures and the people who support/compose them. Structural analysis is important in identifying what these structures are, and which of them are stronger or causally primary. There may well be cases where the most immediate oppression facing someone is transphobia and as an egoist, it's their right to focus on this struggle. But crucially - Stirnerian egoists are not under a Kantian/Levinasian duty to be accountable to "the other" or to avoid holding assumptions specific to their own positionality or life-experience. Transphobia (when it's real transphobia and not imagined microaggression/failure to fulfil the Levinasian duty) is spook-thinking. Reducing one's own identity to "a trans person" and seeing transphobia everywhere based on personal projections or others' blindness to one's experience is also spook-thinking. One gets out of transphobia (in the real, not the idpol sense) as simply as deciding not to discriminate against someone because they're trans. If a group of people all decide this, there's no real transphobia in the group (only differences of experience). Capitalism is a deeper structure because the coercion behind it is deeper. It's a lot harder to live without money, without paying rent or tax, without working or having some other income source, than it is to not discriminate against one another. Statism is also a deeper structure because it's also a lot harder to live without obeying laws and without risk of arrest or punishment to do so. Transphobia only ranks the same as capitalism and the state if one assumes 1) that the criterion of structural depth is subjective suffering, and 2) that people are under Levinasian duties and that the shirking of such duties amounts to a "structure" which "oppresses" others. Most often, one also has to elevate unintended or minor "microaggressions" to the same level as actual threats to one's existence, and to interpret real instances of everyday oppression mainly in terms of "transphobia" rather than statism or capitalism (for example, transphobic policing or job discrimination). In this way, all the anger and pain of civilised living gets concentrated onto the easier target of "transphobia" which can be addressed via reformist or ultraleft means, rather than onto the structurally deeper but harder-to-resist targets (in effect: taking out one's frustration on a fellow-anarchist with slightly prejudiced views, or on someone who makes an honest mistake, or on rival bands such as Terfs and fascists, *instead of* on the main structural source of one's frustration). One has to hide the interpretive process going on here from oneself as well as from others, so as to create the illusion of an immediate "experience" arising directly from one's "body" and which is an expression of one's "positionality" from which one has a right/power to narrate and must not be "silenced", critiqued, etc. It's spook-thinking and anyone with the slightest knowledge of Reich or Freud can see straight through it.

There is a YouTube channel, Contra Points, that did a good job critiquing Peterson, look for it for a better take than this article.

I have watched a lot of jbp videos, from before he went bonkers, and he really is a mixed bag. His university lectures are worth a look if, like me, you didn't go to university. Just to see what liberal education is nowadays. As he presented himself in these lectures he was anti-fascist & anti-communist, if we're talking WWII definitions of fascism & communism. He hates concentration camps & gulags, probably he hates gulags more, take from that what you will.

The science he bases a lot of his material on, like the lobster crap, and gender rolls, has been thoroughly debunked by scientists who actually work with sea critters and such.

Basically Peterson spouts a few platitudes that are mostly reasonable, but then extrapolates into conclusions having nothing to do with actual data.

She is far better in her analysis then this above incontinance. There was a surprisingly good discussion between her and Roaming Millennial in the last few days which was mostly on point.

Wait. Sir Einzige watches contra?

Contra comes from the same continentalist analysis as I do, her saving grace for me is that she is not bat in belfry stupid like some continentalist associated IDPols who take good post-modern discourse and fuck it up.

Thaddeus Russell and Zero books are the few examples of non anarchist leftism that aren’t just tolerable but half decent. The former has done a really good job in presenting an alt left non IDPol take on pomo with an emphasis on cultural bohemian orientation.

I like Contra though.

Peterson sucks, but this article is a bizarre exercise in doublethink regarding agency and responsibility. "People don't really have responsibility because their choices are structurally constrained, BUT people still REALLY have responsibility because if we say they don't they I don't get to beat you up for calling me the wrong pronoun". Oh, and s/he is an anarchist but still believes in punishing murderers. Because "we" (public opinion) thinks so. It's like Rawls fucked Bookchin up the ass and then out popped this nasty little turd-baby that can't decide if it's a determinist or a voluntarist.

People are never responsible to other people because there is no common social world and we can't decisively prove that free will even exists. People have existential freedom by *SMASHING* social structures which hold them responsible. If people either refuse or fail to smash or secede from dominant structures which constrain them, they are neither free nor responsible, they are sheep. If they succeed, they are now free, but responsible to no-one but their own ethos. Peterson and the idpols are in bed together as vectors of neoliberal responsibilisation. MAKE. TOTAL. DESTROY.

As a comment on another @ article on a g.w. Bush speech once said “deconstructing his lame bullshit is a dubious exercise at best”...

Interesting how this one brings out that the resident egoist neckbeards actually like the misogynist fascist capitalist in question though. Gross.

To those who speak through the language of statistics, you are only a statistic.

They are proving right this fascist clown provocateur du jour, in his statement that for the Left, there are only groups. All of what I'm reading in this article are references to vast demograpic grouping, their socio-economic correlations with compartmented sentiments, aspirations, etc. Where is the individual's role in building autonomy? How one does that? What do you feel personally about your OWN personal socio-economic situation?

None of that appears to matter, because basically you are not a person, but a singularity seen through the lens of some socio-demographics. It's all an identity game with agglomerates. Vladislav Surkov and Anton Vaino rejoice, as their game of Nooscope is working.

I think youre understanding these groups to be innate/essentialist/totalizing. When they are really just ways to describe people sharing and experience in the world

It's naive to believe there is such a thing as "experience" unmediated by beliefs. People's beliefs structure how they experience the world and particular groups' ideologies reframe experiences in particular ways. People are never "just" describing and sharing their experience.

In this edition of anyone-who-disagrees-with-me is alt-right/far-right/fascist, one of the clearest examples of a classical liberal, a true Schlesinger's-Vital-Center-type liberal, is called far-right because...he dislikes and critiques social justice ideology? I have a hard time believing this author has actually delved into Peterson's work, and I wonder how this article passed the IGD editorial board.

What is reprehensible about Peterson, in spite of his having some good qualities, is not that he is far-right and wants to enact "a fundamental restructuring of society" (an essentially unexplained assertion by the author, who quickly wanders away from this claim) - it is that he is one of the most articulate defenders of the status quo, pushing the old "Sure, society is bad, but it could be way worse, so we should protect what we have!" line. Peterson laments the death of the oceans, yet he defends capitalism as an expression of human nature - this author doesn't even touch on these sorts of flaws. I recommend they clean their room before doing further writing.

please write a critique of peterson. a full length article would be great. looking forward to it.

IGD editorial board? They post “communiques” about graffiti and tankie protests, I don’t think they really care to think that much about what they are posting.

To be fair a lot of what JP says resonates with some far-right positions. If it quacks like a duck...

That's a Hitler-was-a-vegetarian argument (Association Fallacy). Sure, Peterson has a nature-over-nurture view of human behavior, which is generally associated with the Right (as opposed to the social constructionism typical of the Left), but that alone doesn't make him "far-right" - one could hold that view and still coherently have any political position.

Peterson regularly says he views the far-left (SJW-commie types) and alt-right as "equally dangerous" and false and both guilty of "resentment" (one of his favorite slurs) and favoring identity politics over individualism, and he regularly lectures on the history of totalitarianism (communist and fascist) and the danger of losing liberalism to totalitarianism - again, *classic* Schlesinger-type liberal (though I've never heard him directly reference Schlesinger).

The yellow journalism of IGD ignores all of this and connects him to the alt-right, even though many in the alt-right virulently hate him and regularly trash him. Peterson said in an interview that one of his proudest achievements is the "thousands of e-mails" he has received from people telling him that his lectures stopped them from becoming alt-right. As a media platform so focused on the alt-right, IGD should retract this story and acknowledge that they are spreading straight-up misinformation. But they probably won't, because their ideology depends on propagating the idea that some sort of "far-right" takeover is happening.

"Sure, Peterson has a nature-over-nurture view of human behavior, which is generally associated with the Right (as opposed to the social constructionism typical of the Left), but that alone doesn't make him "far-right" - one could hold that view and still coherently have any political position."

This is social darwinism, pure and simple. The notion that social realtions are driven by natural laws and natural selection, and that, instutitions and values that support this selection must be -self-servingly- maintained. Ergo, totally ultra-conservative.

I'm okay with your claim that IGD's yellow journalism, tho, but it doesn't take an astute hair-splitter like your idol Scotus to notice that. We're into comic book radleft pamphletism, here.

A nature first view of reality is not automatically social darwinism. Peterson is far from being Ragnor Redbeard.

Natural law theory as applied to socio-economic dynamics is rooted in social darwinism. This is Herbert Spencer's naturalistic theory for the industrial age, where "nature, not nurture" equates to an imagined free rule of natural selection where "might is right".

Fine he makes ducks quack then.
Your counterpoint would only make sense if a lot of vegetarians were nazis and saw substantial commonalities between the ideas.

Social darwinism and White supremacy are at the roots of Nazism. Vegetarianism is not, dimwit. Hitler's love formdogs was also a side issue.

Re: Bellamy

I think what's alt-right about him is the McCarthyite reds-under-the-beds narrative where there's a communist conspiracy to destroy the west, and idpol, "cultural Marxism", Clinton, the New Left, women's liberation, neo-pronouns and who knows what else are all fronts for this conspiracy. I've honestly seen him say things like "I'll never use the pronoun 'ze' because it's a communist word", which is pretty fucking paranoid. It puts him in exactly the same camp as a 50s US conservative like Barry Goldwater, and it's dangerously similar to the "anti-Bolshevism" found in historical fascism.

However, yes, he clearly doesn't want to be lumped in with the Charlottesville lot so he plays the "totalitarianism" card (which is also common in 50s McCarthyism). But I've never seen him spotting Nazis everywhere the way he spots communists everywhere. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe he does, but he seems far more obsessed with communism.

Hey @critic, if there's any further doubt that needs dealing with (from people who aren't locked in to their positions like ziggy), Check out this article

Case closed. Dude is a batshit reactionary with enough sense to smokescreen his most damning positions on things but not even very well. If somebody can't piece it together after reading this article, the problem is behind their eyes, cause all the pieces are in plain view.

Yes, fucking a this is what I’m talking about. It’s not like fascism exists per se as a coherent ideology: *that’s* the smokescreen. It’s a convergence of practices and gestures, among which is demonization of all opposition ‘from below and to the left’, idolization of (spurious, hypermodern) ‘traditionalism’ etc. it’s not like a coherent set of ideas, it’s just a plan to mobilize violent reaction. It doesn’t need to be consistent just look at the ‘big tent’ of the right these days. It just needs to be effective in rallying its troops and terrorizing its targets.

It’s not coherent and has the similarities in terms of ideological hodgepodge. All politicians involves violent means and ends instrumentality.

You can but it would be a stupid comparison to make since there's almost zero threat of lethal violence from anybody calling themselves a commie in the modern north american context.

I agree with you. But can we still call it fascism because that is what those "practices and gestures" ultimately amount to?

aren't proofread and edited? It's appalling and I'm not really a spelling or grammar nazi but you would think people would give it a once over before they posted it online especially from a outlet with a team of writers. I think it's the new spontaneity or effervescence, do it once and don't look back.

And @news has posted some questionable stuff just because they felt its interesting.

Ill never get the "IGD posted this on their site so it must be word for word what they think and written by them". Are people dense enough to think that?

you're responding to. that way if a comment is removed, it will be clearer what is going on.
also, it's just good practice.

otoh: chaos is great, so...

Why don't you simply stop removing comments? Or does that rub against your authoritarian instincts?

sometimes it seem arbitrary what yall remove.

of course the basement dwelling egoist boys club loves Herr Peterson. it makes them feel like Ubermenschen for making their beds.

In fact it's leftoids like you who make him look better then he is. You're basically the radical version of Cathy Newman.

This analysis is piss poor. Its typical, of course; but piss poor. There are only individuals. Its not that either we are determined by the functions of the state or we resist, essentially falling within collectivities on either hand; the way of indifference and escape is far more interesting, alluring; do what you will cannot fail to include: Leave it all behind and walk away (if it serves). Yes it takes (earned) privilege to not have started a family and to have the freedom to leave; yes it takes lone wolf meaning to walk away. No this is not a white thing; its voluntary non association. Margarine words all around: privilege, fascism. Until there are open attacks by anarchists on POC's for being capitalists, just as equally as there are on whites, only those wrapped up in hypocrisy will refuse to see it. Fuck left capitalism, Right Capitalism, and all variations on fash, leftiesincluded.

your desire to see equal attacks on POC liberals/capitalists as white capitalists is racist as it is rooted in your reaction to identity politics, not in the reality that there are a LOT less POC capitalists than white ones, both because whites are the largest racial group by number, and the fact that they have the most wealth and access to capital BY FAR, making them far more likely to be of the owning class than POC, even aside from their majority numbers per person.

you are a reactionary. so are all the other little egoist losers on here. reactionaries and contrarians pretending to be profound thinkers to make their egos feel better. it's fucking pathetic. the turn to egoism/individualism around here was this websites downfall. bring back the insurrectionary anarchy.

This site is alot better than years ago when it was dominated by syndicalists, unionists and libertarian socialists endlessly spouting about organising councils and supporting glorified tantrum addicts into black block formations always bragging about how many windows they smashed at the weekend, boooooring!

boring to people with the privilege of not being under attack, I suppose.

racism is a margarine word. Its not intended to mean.
Everyone knows that there are plenty more white capitalists than POC capitalists; that if you are white you are a capitalist already; that if youre white you're racist; that it takes privilege to be able to take issue with these things, BLAH BLAH BLAH. The point is that you cannot grasp the possibility of the revolutionary figure because your capacity to see Capitalism per se, not because in the body of a white person, but alone, is the real issue. So again. Once open attacks on capital by anarchists are advocated against capitalism per se, the collective identity you espouse will be worth something to step into. Until then, good luck.

As usual with anarcho-leftists, this brocialist still lives in the realm of 100 years ago when 99.99% of the world's capitalists were White westerners lole Carnegie or Rockefeller. It'd be far too complex for his mind to digest the fact that nowadays a large portion of the world's billionnaires are also Arabic, Indian or Chinese, and that they DO play a significant part in the extraction industry in North and South America as well as Africa. Let's remain in the good ol' Western flick (now with improved progressive representation politics!) so it's safer, where you can't be having the bad guys all over the place under different outifts.

re: 23:26


America does next to no productive activity nowadays. China is the rising power. Most of the world's real industrial production happens in China. America is a rentier economy which relies on past advantages and military power to maintain an artificial primacy.

Chinese capitalism will be neo-Confucian. Social credit rankings, face-recognition cams, big data gone mad, brain-tracking devices in people's hats, collating of micro-transgressions across everyday life, Confucian etiquette norms, universal guilt/shame and a "redressing of historical injustices" by a ruling elite acting on behalf of the oppressed. All very much in line with the way idpol works. Idpol is the Trojan horse of Chinese capitalism.

capitalism cannot exist without the divisions it creates through structural policies that create racism/racial hierarchies/supremacy.

What evidence do you have that capitalism requires racial supremacy?

The best I can imagine is that it requires active underdevelopment of certain regions and a division into primary and secondary labour markets. Even assuming this is the case, there's no reason the divisions can't be reshuffled. Japan has become part of the core, so in some senses has Dubai, why couldn't China? Eastern Europe (which is white) has become part of the periphery or semiperiphery, why couldn't the US rustbelt, or other parts of Europe?

Re: 21.15


You're citing Roland Barthes, right? Operation Margarine?

Barthes would be all over idpol. He pretty much outlawed "-ness" and "-ity" words as myths (spooks). What he would have made of a statement like "whiteness is creeping onto my Twitter feed", I can only shudder!

Racism had two definite definitions pre-idpol: 1) individual prejudice and discrimination based on "race". or 2) systematic patterns of state-sanctioned inequality (e.g. apartheid). The two are not the same. Idpols attack 1) and pretend they're attacking 2) because they think 2) is a sociocultural side-effect of 1). Except mostly they aren't even attacking 1), they're attacking stuff which has no prejudicial intent but which they think has a structural effect. Except that they only have the structural effect if idpols' entire theory is right, which they never bother to try to prove, because opposing it is "racist". Hence how we get absurdities like "the vegan movement has a serious racism problem" and "all geography is racist". It's honestly an insult to people who suffered slavery and genocide and I wish I could bring up some black Niger Delta militants to beat some sense into these people.

" that if you are white you are a capitalist already; that if youre white you're racist; that it takes privilege to be able to take issue with these things,"

what a pathetic fucking perspective.

>everyone who disagrees with me is a reactionary
>attacking POC capitalists is racist
>I can mind-read other people's secret motivations

Fuck off back to Tumblr.

tl;dr "everyone i don't like is far right"

Peterson does come out with far-right stuff. The McCarthyite conspiracy theorists especially. He's more subtle about it than Milo or Spencer but he believes "western civilisation" is under attack (GOOD - I hope all civilisation is under attack) and wants some kind of conservative backlash to restore order. It's slipping under the radar with some anarchists because he's cried wolf too often.

"Incels embrace Jordan Peterson" is about as meaningless as a header saying " Paedophiles embrace Hilary Clinton" and illustrates the lowest form of misleading speculative journalism.,.

AFAIK "incel" is an identity, not a movement. Saying "incels embrace Jordan Peterson" is like saying "gays endorse Hillary Clinton" and using that to bash either Hillary Clinton or gays.

The left and idpol-infested brands of anarchy have nothing to offer the large numbers of pissed-off aspies, schizos and other psychologically different people who are suffering the blunt end of totalitarian over-regulation today. People feel the only way to be anti-system is to be far-right (or convert to Islam and join ISIS). It's counterintuitive but it's the way things are playing out today. There's an anti-system reaction because of excessive stress and there's an absence of PC-filters and "what am I for the other" crap and guilt-politics in general. Anarchy is the natural outlet for this reaction. But these days, idpol and related over-regulation has driven these people away from the left and from anarchy. This is VERY different from 10-20 years ago when anarchy was getting the lion's share of these people (Kaczynski, Sven, Billy Cottrell, LulzSec, etc). There's still a few around the disability and trans branches of idpol but the angriest are all going alt-right. And it's all because the left and idpol won't address the REAL oppressions today, which are over-regulation, excessive stress, morality-policing, social exclusion, lack of income/land/jobs, and far too much telling-what-to-do. Atassa would appeal to these people more than IGD, it's just a shame it's not reaching them.

First thing. Fewer people are having sex nowadays than in the recent past.
This isn't necessarily a problem, if people just don't want to have sex, but it's pretty clear that's not what's happening. People are too busy, intimidated by the Spectacle's performance norms, and scared of one another to have sex. And it's certainly a problem if you're into 60s-style counterculture.

Second thing. Recognising it's a problem is not misogynistic. The people raising the issue loudest are incels, because the left has developed a strong sex-negative bent. But I've also seen Queer activists and sex worker activists (for example) raising the issue. Also, “some men are unfuckable because of patriarchal performance norms” and “some women are unfuckable because of patriarchal appearance norms” are feminist issues by any stretch.

Third thing. It's a global problem. Google “restive youth problem”. All over the world, young men are unable to meet culturally mandated norms for adult manhood. The reason for this, is neoliberal capitalism (plus Fordist/Victorian norms for adult manhood).

Fourth thing. Versus LeWay. Sexual norms, monogamy, polygamy, polyamory, gender definitions, vary an awful lot across different indigenous societies. It was anthropological observations of this diversity (e.g. the Na have no fathers; the Nayar women have a series of temporary partners; some Native American groups have three genders) which started the sex/gender distinction and everything that stemmed from it. Marriage in indigenous societies is often NOT REALLY ABOUT SEX AT ALL, it's about alliances between lineages or clans – by “exchanging” either women or men, societies create a social bond extending beyond the group. And it has NOTHING TO DO WITH NURTURING as most indigenous groups have collective childcare by the entire band. Some groups have strict norms, but they're often the ones which are generally more authoritarian and which subordinate individuals to lineages (e.g. Arabs, Afghans). Often the strict norms are unenforceable in practice, and in fact, it doesn't much matter whether they're enforced so long as people keep up appearances. Peterson doesn't say exactly what he means by “enforced monogamy”, but presumably, he means the regime which was prevalent from the Middle Ages to the 1960s in Europe and the Middle East, where “adultery”, “fornication” and “sodomy” were either illegal or semi-illegal. Saudi Arabia today has compulsory monogamy, but the men rape their maids and travel to Europe to fuck sex workers, it was much the same in Victorian England from what I've read. Peterson probably doesn't care because he's only bothered about the men.

Of the most anarchist ones:
!Kung are monogamous but have easy divorce (i.e. serial monogamy, similar to the US). Mbuti have sexual freedom until the first child is born, at which point they are (in theory) monogamous (at least one person got CAUGHT adultering during Turnbull's fieldwork, who knows how many were at it). Guarani were not monogamous at the time of first contact with Christians. Yanomami are polygamous, and women can leave abusive relationships (the society is generally very violent so this happens quite a lot). Sambia are polygamous (as well as the weird gay/pedo stuff everyone knows about). Dani are polygamous. 40% of Dani men are unmarried at any one time. Trobriand Islanders are polyamorous. Andaman Islanders are mostly monogamous. Ladakhi marriages are flexible and sometimes polygamous, with no exclusive monogamous relationships (although some people became celibate monks and nuns). Also, the most durable nineteenth-century communes were those which practiced either polyamory or celibacy. Pairing-off has disruptive effects on overall group bonds. It's just the same in the animal world – there's a whole range of “natural” arrangements. Our nearest relatives – Bonobo chimps – are polyamorous and bisexual. Other species are supposedly monogamous. But, genetic tests on monogamous species show that they're all “cheating” on the side.

Monogamy in its current form probably appeared in the late Roman years with the rise of Christianity. Romans were pagans who believed in a life-death-rebirth cycle. Sex leads to life leads to death. Christians sought to break this cycle by taking out the sex bit. Celibacy was highly valued in early Christianity. This was actually a rebellion against the rigid patriarchal Roman household (one senior man ruling over dozens of younger men and women) and very popular with young people of both genders (AFAIK Rome only recognised two). But because it was believed people could become sick from sex deprivation (yes, really), the Christians permitted exceptions on the narrowest model possible: monogamous marriage.

Fifth thing. Sexual frustration is not driving young men to spree-kill (or kill themselves, etc). “Incel ideology” is also not driving young men to spree-kill. Sexual frustration is the nodal point, the “symptom”, onto which existential dissatisfaction is concentrated. People spree-kill because they're depressed, angry, frustrated, hate society, and have a range of grievances (often including bullying, criminalisation, unemployment, etc). Ideologies APPEAL to people only if they make sense of what the person is experiencing and feeling. So, sometimes angry, frustrated, depressed young men adopt “radical” views which make subjective sense for them of why they're depressed, angry and aggrieved. One of these ideologies is so-called “incel ideology”. It's not an ideology, it's a loose-knit discourse disseminated on internet forums, but it provides an account of why they're feeling anger and frustration and depression which gives them a definite target, and therefore, it's superficially appealing to unintelligent people. The ideology IS NOT JUST CHANNELLING THE FACT THAT THEY'RE NOT HAVING SEX. It's channelling all the emotions which come from living in a semi-totalitarian neoliberal society. However, the ideology only works because it's true that a lot of young men want to be having sex and aren't having sex (same way political Islam only works because there actually is western aggression against Muslim countries). This said – we know that violence can become a mystical sublimation for repressed sexual desire. This is well-documented in Theweleit, who was recounting similar phenomena in historical fascism. In a way, Trump is right that it's a mental health problem. But not in the CBT sense or the stigma sense. In the sense that so-called mental health problems are nodal points for social contradictions (c.f. SPK).

Sixth thing. If there's a real “incel problem” (and I'm not sure if there is or not), it doesn't necessarily lead to reactionary conclusions. It's actually rather easily solved. For example: basic income plus legalised sex work pretty much solves the “incel” problem. “Charity” sex workers who have sex with “incels” to take away the grievance solves the “incel” problem. Sex-bots solve the “incel” problem. A revival of something like the 60s counterculture would probably solve the “incel” problem. A shift in attractiveness norms for both/all genders (which btw the idpols are pushing anyway) would probably solve the “incel” problem. It's not a zero-sum issue of “incels get no sex” versus “women get enslaved”. It looks that way because idpols and alt-right are a bunch of twats who mirror one another's nonsense and rhetorically escalate things until nothing's soluble. But if “incel ideology” is acting as a hub for other grievances, none of this will work. Because it hasn't addressed the excessively stressful context, the lack of existential meaning, the social inequalities and so on. Generally when a symptom is solved, another will replace it. What solves the underlying problems? General disalienation of life.

and peterson advocates for legalization of sex work? or a return to more traditional (patriarchal) gender norms?

Peterson's a cunt. I'm rebutting the idea that "we can solve the incel problem through enforced monogamy" (whether state or public opinion enforced). My point is that there's easy solutions to the "incel problem", if it's really a problem. Anarchists, the left, idpols can come up with easy solutions. But it's not happening because "incels" are white men and therefore can't be oppressed, plus they're right-aligned so they're the enemy so one doesn't take their problems seriously. And this kind of zero-sum, have-your-cake-and-eat-it crap is making problems insoluble - which is probably the point, because the "problems" are just hooks for discontent and the real investment is in the conflict itself.

It always perplexes me with the MRA lot, how on the one hand they whine about women not having sex with them or being too hard-to-get, and on the other hand, they whine about women being "sluts" and "whores" and want to marry virgins. One of the PUA superstars thinks that rape should be legalised if women invite a man back to their room, to make women protect their sexual honour better. This from a man, whose entire life-purpose is teaching men how to get women to have sex with them. Isn't his proposal going to make women more conservative, less willing to go back to someone's room to begin with? Why does he want a return to a situation where PUAs are out of work because women won't have sex before marriage? It makes no sense. And people are so busy being outraged that they don't notice that it makes no sense. This kind of contradiction runs through the MRA stuff.

It's similar with idpol stuff though... think about it: the easiest way to stop rape would be to make public sex normative. If people have sex in private, it's automatically suspect, what are they trying to hide? Do it in public and, if it looks abusive, someone will intervene. At the very least, there'll be evidence. But suggest this to idpols they'll call you a creep. They hate any public displays of sexuality, even really mild stuff like flirting, they really want sex purged from public spaces. Another thing: we have emotion readers now, the Chinese are using them in the workplace to monitor workers, why aren't they being adopted in sexual situations? Why aren't they being adopted after abuse accusations, since they can prove there's imprinted trauma? And why aren't idpols pioneering this? It makes no sense - but basically, they're very conservative about anything like this. Look at the reaction to deepfakes, and to sexbots. They don't want any innovation in the sexual field. But they're all into strong consent and pansexuality and multiple sexual identities... it's very strange.

Aren't you just ripping off the radical veneer of a lot of the authoritarian IdPol crowd and revealing them to be just another group of reactionaries, of the liberal variety?

Pretty much, yeah.

@critic Seriously excellent analysis of incel, politics, Islam, existence.,.life in general in neo-liberal society.,.


Yes, all politicians are driven by their need for power, and any ideology, whether left or right, provides an opportunity to obtain it. The psychology is complex, but one could connect complex elements of inadequacy and inferiority during childhood. My field of expertise concerns the development of the infant into a self-reliant and independent being, capable of living a productive reproducing life and upholding the values which prolong its tenure upon Earth, a mindset resistant to the doctrine of oppression which is plaguing my generation, the incel, who have become disempowered, infected and neutered by the PC Idpol valuas. Once there were just the Apollonian and Dionesian influences coursing through our veins, finding a balance, the equilibrium which needed no politician to judge and pass sentence upon. One took what one wanted and played the debt one way or the other, through pillage, rape or conquest, life was never dull, and innocent people were spared any inconvenience, only the players of this game were the heroic men who made life a challenging adventure,,,it was never dull, always bold and with a clean backyard and attic, a place where a child could still without fear venture, knowing that The clan's values took care of decency, based on purity of an iron will, nay, of a titanium mind.

Yeah, fascism has never been a coherent ideology (Ziggy: yes, communism in a sense is similar, but there was an orthodox form of communism with a doctrine, and in its day, all the Marxist groups had their own platforms). AFAIK the only group in power which called itself fascist was Mussolini's. The only group which called itself Nazi was Hitler's. And we'd get into endless problems trying to determine which of the other horrible right-wing dictatorships and horrible right-wing populist governments qualify as "fascist" - whether Franco, Salazar, the Greek junta, the Hindu RSS, Idi Amin, Erdogan, the Turkish juntas, the Latin American juntas (to take just a few examples) are fascist.

The trouble is, how we deal with the fact that fascism exists, and fascism is not coherent, and at the same time recognise the differences between fascism, conservatism, nationalism, (classical) liberalism, authoritarianism in general, individual prejudice in general, structural inequality in general. Because there's very clear continuity - a continuum more than a difference in kind - between fascism and nationalism, fascism and everyday authoritarianism, fascism and anticommunism, fascism and racism.

And if we look historically at Germany (as the best-known example), we don't see a liberal democracy where suddenly these evil Nazis appear fully-formed and take over. We see a fascist movement which has roots in earlier nationalist and conservative tendencies, which initially is mostly pissed-off ex-soldiers who can't get jobs or get a start in conventional lives after World War 1, who libidinally invest in the all-male soldier band as the ideal social form for this reason (Freikorps); and we see "conservative revolution", a discourse in some ways quite similar to Peterson's, in which there is a need for radical change to restore tradition against a rising Bolshevik tide (in fact the Freikorps have been used by the state - under social-democrat rule - to massacre a lot of the communists during the 1919-20 revolt, and then relied on the remaining socialists/communists to defend the "democratic" state from the Kapp Putsch by the far-right). In retrospect most people view the conservative revolution writers and the Freikorps as proto-fascist, but they don't have an organisational unity or ideological unity and they're actually rather diverse. Later on they all get unified into the Nazi Party and the SA (which is a kind of mega-Freikorps), but the Nazis don't seize power, they get elected in by defecting conservative and liberal voters (most of whom probably aren't actual Nazis), and even then don't win a majority, but have to go through a kind of emergency process where there's an over-the-top reaction to a supposed terrorist event (the Reichstag fire) followed by outlawing most of the left, and then a consolidation of power. And we see Hitler taking power after a series of far-right-inclined presidents and chancellors - Papen, Schleicher, Hindenburg - who all have fascistic traits and who all tend to ratchet up emergency powers and fascistic aspects of the state (which were already very pronounced as the country literally only democratised in 1918, and instantly turned into a state of emergency where statists and fascists were massacring communists). In retrospect, Trump is in some ways more like Hindenburg or Papen than Hitler; another shift rightwards and America's at Hitler (though whether Trump could make himself Hitler in the event of a big terror attack - real or staged - is still a live question to me... I believe he couldn't without the support of the deep state, and that's where the danger he poses has foundered).

So it doesn't make much sense to think of fascism as an ideology which appears fully formed and converts or "radicalises" people to itself, and then takes power as a definite movement. It might make more sense to think of fascism as a force (similar to Kropotkin's "political principle") which exists in various intensities in all authoritarian institutions, all states (especially "deep" states), but at different degrees of density and purity. The police are always a fascist or fascistic institution, prisons are always fascistic, military top brass are usually fascistic, but they don't have absolute power, they exist in balances of forces both within the state (with the regulatory bureaucracies, the legitimation systems, the welfare infrastructures) and within society (with labour and social movements, capitalists, drop-outs, "criminals", etc). So most of the time, we encounter fascism in hybrid combinations with other things - the Muslim Brotherhood, say, is a mixture of fascistic tendencies with social welfare tendencies, and anti-colonial tendencies; the American state circa 1980 was a hybrid structure of fascistic police, CIA, military-industrial elements along with strong lobbying power of the capitalists, entrenched legalistic and bureaucratic structures, and various levels of incorporation of social movements. Possibly there are only two basic principles, the fascist (political) and anarchist (social) principles, but in practice we see segmentations, positions which are anarchistic in some ways and fascistic in others (e.g. state socialism: an anarchistic distributive policy fused with a fascistic policing policy; or right-libertarianism: an anarchistic position on political power with a fascistic arrangement of power in the workplace). And these hybrid combinations are often combined with dispersed social interests: most groups have an interest in fascist power over other groups if they can achieve it, anarchic dispersal of power if they cannot; nobody wants fascist power pointed at them (including for instance the capitalists).

So what happens when a society turns fascist, is that the balance of fascism over other social logics intensifies to the point where it reaches a tipping point. We've seen a kind of becoming-fascist in America and Britain over the past 40 years, the destruction of human and civil and social/welfare rights, the weaponisation of prejudice by the elite to justify neoliberalism, the worship of police and the steady increase in police powers, unconstrained hierarchy in the workplace, the gradual normalisation of more and more extreme authoritarian positions. And each time the "centre" becomes more fascistic (greater proportion of fascism to other forces), the controversy shifts "rightward" (or "upward" on the political compass), the next debate will be about something more authoritarian and the libertarian positions will become further and further from the mainstream and seem more and more "extreme" (when in fact it's the "centre" which has become more extreme). Once they've justified sex offender registries, it's easier to justify "extremism" watchlists. Once they've justified "extremism" watchlists, and also justified immigration detention, it's easier to justify rounding up people on watchlists in the event of an emergency (which is being talked about in France right now). It's not always a slippery slope because it's never clear when a counterforce will be activated, but it's certainly a continuum and a society can get to fascism by carrying on along the continuum. Reagan and Thatcher had fascist tendencies and exerted strong pressures towards increasing the strength of fascistic elements in the hybrid arrangement of forces within the state - militarisation of police, criminalisation of protest, dismantling of the welfarist elements etc. This was taken even further under Bush and Blair - a massive fascistification through the normalisation of torture and inhuman treatment (as open, not secret practices), of securitisation, surveillance, violent police occupation of territory, of permanent global war, of lowering the barrier of criminalisation (broken windows policing and the like). And we're now seeing a new worsening, with Trump and Brexit, and also the likes of Duterte, Erdogan, Xi, in other countries. Macron is trying to do in France what Blair did in Britain, following on from Sarkozy in the role of Thatcher, except that Sarkozy partially failed, so he's trying to jump two stages at once. Anyway... basically society becomes more and more fascist, and we're in the later stages of this, and suddenly we're faced with quite fascistic views being mainstream, and the gap between a fascist and a mainstream conservative or a right-wing liberal being actually not that great. A lot of the fascist shift has gone through the vectors of the establishment of moral panics, followed by securitisation (issues put beyond political contestation as emergency security issues)

And so, a lot of the strategies of antifa (targeting the most extreme fascists, targeting hate speech) are misguided. They made sense in the 70s-80s when the centre was a long way from the far-right and the far-right were building power as a separate force which was still in its nascent stages, so the far-right could be confronted on the streets and defeated before it built a power-base. And they make sense in Greece where there's a clear overlap between the street-level Nazis and the deep state. They don't make sense when the centre has moved so far towards fascism already and the difference between a fascist and an ordinary conservative is so indeterminable, and especially where fascistic logics have been pushed so far by the right and centre, but the right and centre are still in antagonism with marginal far-right sects. Idpols are managing the indeterminability either by focusing on the outright (still marginal) fascists with the most extreme discourses, or by labelling everyone but themselves as fascists. But they're rarely striking at the root, in fact they embrace a lot of the far-right ideas which have gone mainstream (securitisation etc), and their scattershot approach is hitting a lot of the wrong points. Actually a lot of the antifascism now is not directed at the main fascist tendencies in society at all. It's directed at the restive youth stratum, or relative surplus population, who are drawn to violent acting-out, directed in fact "downwards" from more educated people against this stratum, and it's directed at particular structurally-encouraged prejudices dating back to Fordism, many of which were already rejected in the Bush/Blair phase. We really needed targeted antifascist or antiauthoritarian campaigns against things like Asbo's, dispersal zones, lockdowns, criminalisation of protest, CCTV, when these were still nascent. It's harder now, but it's still the strategic place to fight fascist logics I think. Imagine there's a lockdown in some city and half-a-dozen people turn out with placards saying "police state", "stop dictatorship", "civilian space". Kinda like Ruta Pacifica used to do in militarised parts of Colombia. Pretty much however the pigs respond, it's a media disaster. Then we normalise this, like NRA crap after mass shootings. It makes it a lot harder for them to establish fascism through gradually normalising these kinds of emergency situations. Or, we find vulnerable people in prison for nothing, people who will look sympathetic, and make them the focus of "free X" campaigns with shutdowns. A few people bring roads and rail to a standstill until they're freed, target the judges and pigs involved. Eventually they're freed anyway, and we treat it as a victory, then move on to gradually less mediagenic cases. We gradually make judges and pigs afraid to be too extreme and push the norm the other way a bit. We need to push the discourse around explosions of violence that it's all due to excessive stress which is due to neoliberalism. Whether the person's a Nazi, a Muslim, or apolitical, they just snapped under unbearable stress and that's what happens in a pressure-cooker society so DUH, and all the authoritarians are just picking on victims of the system and therefore acting as agents to keep the regime of excessive pressure in place. We lose the liberal media crowd that way, but win the marginalised people who sympathise with this stuff, and again push back the fascist tendencies in public discourse, make a securitised certainty a "controversy". Basically we need to find ways to push back the fascist logics, block the channels.

Great analysis as usual but here's my bone to pick: a lot of the armchair analysis for antifascism seems to want to try and dismiss the basics of street politics and pretend that random @s or working class folks or whoever, with relatively little social capital, can somehow magically "strike at the roots" instead of just forming their own little crews to counter to the reactionary ones. The formative stages are messy and embarrassing and that's always going to be true. Mistakes are made, people are imitating something from the spectacle as likely as acting on their own desires, especially when they're still young.

"Strike at the roots" sounds great as an abstract concept (or just rhetoric) but it's always vague and meta and means nothing when you're literally being attacked. All that matters when you're being attacked is how lonely you happen to be in that moment.

There's nothing wrong with having the basics covered first. I'd argue that the more strategic examples in your last paragraph are only possible after people have been actively supporting each other for a long time, gaining experience and building trust by doing the basics.

I'm not sure as I agree with your assumption as to what's the "basics" and who feels attacked and when. I'm not worried about the current stuff being "messy and embarrassing", I'm worried that it's hitting the wrong targets entirely... we're more likely to be killed by cops than fascists. Also that the ways this kind of "basic" stuff is done and theorised, militate against ever hitting the root targets because it involves an utterly distorted sense of what the dangers are and how they're structurally interconnected. So people are thinking about killings by police for example, and they're focusing on structural racism, they're linking police atrocities to things like racial slurs on Twitter or under-representation in the media. They aren't connecting police atrocities to police, to securitisation, to the fact that American society has become much more fascist from Bush onwards. And this is really a lot more determinate: certainly police atrocities are racially patterned (there's something like an 8 to 1 discrepancy in killings of unarmed black or white people) but there was much worse racial prejudice and structural racism in the 1950s and hardly anyone was killed by police. And also there are white people killed by police, and this gets ignored because the question is reduced to racism. In a similar vein, I don't think lockdowns are an abstract question at all, we're talking about heavily armed pigs controlling entire areas and implicitly threatening (usually working-class) people, barking orders, pointing guns and so on (they even did house-to-house searches in Boston), this is a very immediate attack and if it hasn't killed someone already then it soon will. Same with mass imprisonment, there's lots of people who commit suicide in prison or who are at risk of doing so, as well as the people killed by pigs, screws, other prisoners. It's a huge threat if it's something you're at risk of. Probably there are places where the fascist gangs are strong enough that they're an immediate threat, but I doubt this is true most places, most of the time. And, we have this weird phenomenon today where people feel *immediately* attacked in a life-threatening way by things which really aren't all that immediate or serious from a strict life-or-death point of view (like Jordan Peterson speeches, Terfs, anti-abortion protests, social media hate campaigns, "microaggressions" of all kinds). There may be some indirect causal relationship where prevalence of gendered slurs (say) on social media is connected to rape or murder, but it's very much indirect, it's theoretical or at most a scientific deduction, it's not something that's immediately visible. Truth is, people have *learnt* to see an immediate life-threatening attack in these things, they seem pretty abstract and meta to someone who hasn't inculcated this particular worldview, and the stuff that seems abstract and meta to idpols can seem immediate and concrete to other people with different worldviews. Some of us feel an immediate threat when we see a CCTV watching us, others feel safer or more cautious or never even notice it - it's dependent on worldview.

Yes, people can only do any kind of serious direct action when they've already worked together for awhile on lower-risk stuff and built up trust and operational competency (though there are also very effective, solo actions people can take). But none of the things I suggested require a large number of people or a high level of so-called social capital. Some of them require a lot of courage, but no more than being in a Black Bloc or confronting fascists. It's just a question of shifting targets slightly. Putting state fascism dead-centre of target rather than putting marginal far-right groups or everyday prejudice dead-centre (which doesn't mean ignoring the latter at all).

How could you be sure? I didn't clarify at all, what I meant. I'm certainly not worried about people who "feel" attacked.

I like to use the example of Bill White in the late 90s and early 00s when it comes to fascist threat assessment. That example shows that a general prophylactic approach doesn't really work as fascism is ultimately a cyclical force within the epoch of capitalism.

I do think there needs to be acute situational antifa tactics if you're talking about things like Casa Pound in Italy who have taken things to paramilitary levels. The current swing and deplatform at everything of the far right continuum does not really work in any acute way and if anything motivates them on a psycho social level. Go after the ICE types who just killed a woman in Texas and quit this general swinging for the fences. I certainly agree on your last points.

I would also like to see some type of baseline accessible and affectable libertarian option brought to the discussion. This isn't being helped by the red and gold split that is going on right now something that was not the case in late 19th and early 20th century. I'm convinced that this bad baseline of anarchism has costed us a Voltairine de Cleyre or two in regards to something congruent to the US landscape. For this reason I've brought up the idea of the color orange as a new elective color baseline. Without that the choices are a further grade of reaction, which could well bring a fascistic government(I regard Trump as slightly worse Berlusconi in significantly worse times then when he got in) If there is an US Hitler it won't be Trump, or a Sanders driven new deal with less energy and likely not as good as last time around.

The US needs a Catalonia libertarian anarchist option that is specific and affectable to its context. Of course it you somehow get to that you avoid their big mistakes which includes defending the republican democratic front, something that antifa always falls to in the end at its worse. Try to make 5 monopoly abolition(Tucker's 4 plus Carson's 5th(infrastructure)) a thing.

Aren't you from the Toronto area? Did you notice that two white dudes just bombed a restaurant full of brown people on Ramadan in your backyard? Maybe waving a home-made flag that means nothing to anyone but you isn't much of a plan ziggy … you might be in over your head on this topic, not that it ever stops you from chirping away.

Can't you tell the difference between an occasional lone wolf attacker (who may well be unhinged and/or self-radicalised), and an actual fascist paramilitary organisation carrying out attacks?

Lone wolf attackers are very hard to stop even if you're a pig. The idea that no-platforming groups which themselves stop well short of armed attacks will prevent lone wolf attacks is contentious at best. It's known as "conveyor belt theory" in COIN discourse and is widely criticised. One of its problems is that suppressing nonviolent supporters of an ideology can radicalise them towards violence. Another is that there is no consistent causal progression from more moderate to more extreme positions along an ideological spectrum.

So who's talking about stopping attacks or deplatforming? I wasn't.

In regards to the Toronto 2 had nothing to do with my point.

@critic, could you say more about this?

'Possibly there are only two basic principles, the fascist (political) and anarchist (social) principles, but in practice we see segmentations, positions which are anarchistic in some ways and fascistic in others (e.g. state socialism: an anarchistic distributive policy fused with a fascistic policing policy; or right-libertarianism: an anarchistic position on political power with a fascistic arrangement of power in the workplace)'

I'm not sure I understand the way you're using the words social and political here? otherwise very thought-provoking analysis.

I think you're being had -let's say, mystified- by @critic's over-conceptualizations. Not saying he ain't a provider of thoughtful and some useful commentary, but he may be suffering from some mental virus contracted though his historical debate with Emile? Or maybe it's more straightforward than this, lol.

The social and the political are not *inherently* distinct spheres of interest and activity, they're actually found to be two faces of a same coin. Political parties, for instance the Liberals in Canada are at the tip of immense social icebergs that grown out of some university, media, arts, and shitlord suburban business milieus alike, no matter how they may not like each other on the surface, they're meeting up through several layers of social hubs, most of which are "underground" in the way as they are informal, corporeal. Let's not talk of gay saunas lol. They are all "fascistic arrangements of power in the workplace".

The neofascists, like, say, La Meute in Quebec, are deeply-rooted in countryside and suburban milieus of the construction/real estate industry, but also are grunts of the mining industry, when they got any signficiant economic activity. Too much attention is being put on mugshots and imagery of their most intense elements, not enough on their "social" aspects, their "conveyor belts" as @critic brought up, where the social serves as engine for the political, which in turn serves as a platform for the social captial to not only push its interests but to restitute its nurturing conditions... etc.

Lone wolves.... they appear to be dudes driven out of the power provided by the social aspect. They are in a way socially-excluded from the capitalist gimmicks of upward social mobility, even they may be economically comfy people (filling up your basement with guns requires some money, it requires a house with a basement in the first place). It's known in the Muslim world just like in the Western/Christian world that these are individuals who didn't get their shot at social success, for one reason or another, so they go down to the other meaning of this expression.

The fascist groups in the Muslim world... they indeed aren't the same. They work like mafias. Clans bassed on families, taking loads of money and guns from mysterious sources, to train and brainwash their children to become assassins and torturers. That's, at least, what I understood of the Syrian and Lybian crowds. Fascist groups in North America that are anywhere near as violent as jihadists are equally rooted in those shitty gangster gimmicks. Their "radicalization" isn't connected to the "causal progression" within their ideological spectrums, but neither is due to the extrisinc suppression of their lesser-violent elements, even if, yes, this suppression often serves as to give them leeway for more recruits. Look rather at *anomie* as a cause. Read RK Merton.

The example taken by SE with Casa Pound 0even if I don't support his views- is very relevant to current antifascism, as Casa Pound's rise is attributed to its social gimmicks, that's not limited to the political spectacle they do. The recuperation of counterculture by neofascists for decades, their infiltration of the metal and noise scenes through the trojan horse of "satanism" and the occult -that worked quite well up until the schism of the liberal Church of Satan and its fascist Setian inbreds- was all social and cultural in character. It allowed for gregarian patterns and a certain level of cultural discipline.

The Maoists, or Left fascists, have understood this as well. You gotta create a spiderweb of "dissent" in order to catch all kinds of naive young people and inject them. You can insure a vast network of support and more importantly "self-policing" (horzizontal totalitarian control) by profusely encouraging socializing stunts, and, well, going to bed with all kinds of "Left" people including anarchos, whereas some forms of anti-normative sexual "exploits" AND/OR more or less violent direct actions may work in a way to produce social capital, giving people Radicred points to get their VIP place in some milieus. But a level of linguistic discipline is also expected, as seen through all the identity politics verbillage and imagery. On the other hand, while everyone's throwing glitter at each other's faces with surface-level posturing wars, there is sheer absence of radicality, or people have lost touch with the principle of solving their problems by going at the roots of it. So this isn't really "radicalization", the term liberals like to use. The more accurate term is probably "fanatization", or sectarianism.

Also... there's a creeping problem among that anti-antifa crowd -which @critic appears to have been preserving here- in conflating any sort of deplaforming with "suppression" or even worse "repression" of speech. Some people still can't understand that letting people talk isn't the same as allowing them for a PUBLIC TRIBUNE. And yes, allowing some bullshit to spread through comment sections or 4chan threads means just that. Online "talk" is not, just, talk. It is widely-published, public content. Just like... tons of idiot/ignorant people on campuses will say stupid things to each other, and antifa was never been about repressing them, just not giving them a public tribune. Personally i ain't much into this kind of activism and I don't think that the insistence on deplatforming is doign anything else than preserve a certain liberal democratic consensus, or illusion thereof. It is not assertive and creative development of any free world, or of anything whatsover, other than teenage-like ganging up around stuff we hate in other, ugly distasteful people.

Been looking at the antifascist posts on MtlCounter-info, that expose local neofascist brutes, and at some point started to feel that I was just partaking in some online disgust porn.... I know it may be necessary to expose them, but, I sense an ugly pattern derived from the schoolyard herd politics, you know. In the mean time, between two protests, what is being created that's inherently liberating from capitalist society? Anything sane to be doing together, that counters all the hate drive? Still believe it's a great idea to keep it all closed and private for your "elite"? Sectarianism endures...

The leftist deplatforming drive has it's roots in soft power repression. The reason why I'm not down with deplatforming is because it will culminate in a discourse of repressive practice that will eventually catch up to the anti-authoritarians. You don't even need to have a culture of free speech(own speech not free speech) to realize what a bad idea the deplatformist logic is. Deplatorming is also inherently non anarchist in practice as it revolves around power over.

Why not simply focus on dismantling the apparatuses as opposed to playing the capture the flag game.

First, Peterson isn't 'far right'. He is conservative, but he is not far right or alt-right. He defines himself as a classic British liberal.

Second, Peterson never claimed the 'state' should enforce monogamy. He simply said 'enforced monogamy', and later clarified this to mean via social structures and culture (obviously monogamy is already being enforced this way). It's still weird and authoritarian sounding, but at least try to get the man's quotes correct.

Third, "what we see from activists, many of whom are not making appeals to authority by carrying signs and placards" is just not true. Almost all activists make appeals to authority by saying 'stop' to certain practices (implying someone in authority should 'stop' the bad behavior of others), or by asking someone in power to 'do something' about a certain issue. Campus activists go to the administration to report on a racist/sexist/homophobic prof. Other activists report racist/sexist/homophobic trolls to twitter, facebook, instagram, etc.

Finally, individual responsibility is utlimately impossible in isolation. Everything we do affects someone else, and vice versa. We need each. I mean, I can't exactly open the pod bay doors by myself.

Crimethink may not make demands, but almost every other activist group does.

And this is pretty vague:

"Our challenge, rather, is to create spaces where people can discuss and implement solutions directly, on an ongoing and collective basis. Rather than proposing quick fixes, we should be spreading new practices. We don’t need blueprints, but points of departure."

Jordan Peterson's problem is he's so vague and elusive, he gets misinterpreted. Let's not follow his example.

Hi Dave, that's pretty weak how you just assume that self-assigned labels are gospel truth from the forces of reaction. "Classical liberal" is widely regarded as a smoke screen for alt right pundits in the youtube sphere ATM

People that are classical liberal are actually classical liberals. You do know there's actually a slur from alt righters seeing these people as soft the way hard leftist view liberals.

You're the gatekeeper expert on the alt right and their definitions?

I simply investigate what they are actually saying and how the various mindsets are defining themselves.

Listening to what demagogues say isn't how you understand or define them.

There is no objectivity when it comes to what ideology is in the full sense. The default to understanding ideology is to actually look at what peoples values are. For me to be a fascist or far right you actually have to check off the values that come with it. Peterson does not even come close to this. He's basically a red tory with some left wing sympathies if you've actually bothered to properly research his positions. He's spoken fondly of Potlach for instance(Russell Brand interview) and has talked about the need for a strong left. You see similar sentiment with someone like Sargon of Akkad who's a centrist mix of social democrat and classical liberal(liberalist as he likes to call himself) That ain't far right by ANY stretch of the imagination. I can understand why those retards @antifa would like to think so. They have to spectralize their binary based enemies. If they actually defined fascist acutely they'd have long since stopped existing. Hell it all started when they expanded their enemies from fascist to far right, now the retardation has reached those that clearly are not even right wing.

This is exactly my point, "Sargon" is the exact same type of demagogue, thinly veiling far right positions and apologia behind claims of "centrism". If you're buying what they're selling, that's really embarrassing for you dude!

He's not far right deal with it.

Of course he is, or he wouldn't have had to go to all the trouble of distancing himself from the charlottesville scandal. I really hope you're only playing the fool and not just this dim ...

You’re probably not alt right. I’m not the one who parrots antifa idpol talking points.

the people who were AT Charlottesville distance themselves from it you moron.

Widely regarded by whom? You and your two Facebook friends?

I understand what classical liberalism is, even if I disagree with it. But it's not far right, let alone even 'alt-right' Peterson doesn't endorse the far right, the alt-right, Nazis, or racialism of any kind. You might want to take a look at some of Peterson's videos where he's talking about how Hitler was even more evil than we imagined. Peterson is a conservative but he's not far right.

Talk about reactionary. You label people in a reactionary way.

Is that he is basically a value reconstruction ideologue in a time of institutional breakdown. The only thing he has in common with fascists is that he is a symptom of a rotting epoch. If we think about the world after 2025 if will probably be similar to what happened after 1945. Excessive deconstruction hits a wall for many people combined with the need for some kind of societal rebuild. Peterson simply represents a centrist mindset for what many people want. There are left wing Peterson fans for instance who want the same thing.

I've actually accepted that this will happen and am simply planning for what a new radical epoch will look like within the coming reconstruction period.

I'm not missing anything … just profoundly disagreeing with you. Already pointed out several compelling reasons why calling Peterson a "centrist" says a lot about you, as well as being pretty damned misleading (aka wrong).

I could elaborate about how your terrible reasoning is a result of the overton window moving so far to the right in the last decade or so but we both know that talking to you is a waste of my time, so I won't bother.

I'm more radical then you are, let's get this straight. I'm the one that wants civilization gone and is not friendly towards organization and mediation. I'm one of the few people with the dilettantic idea of ending education. I'm the post-leftist your the leftist know your rank.

In regards to overton window shift, that depends entirely on what your looking at. Bernie Sanders was not possible a generation ago so clearly on the economic front things have not shifted right quite the opposite. There is a shift on the cultural side of things towards reconstructive reaction and I see that as inevitable. That was all but guaranteed when 60s-70s radicals did not get the revolutionary insurgent job done. People want to see some type of new 1950s, I don't, but I also have to adjust to reality. There's certainly not much YOU can do to stop some of this from happening. What you and the IDPols are doing is potentially making things worse by not adjusting to a new type of radical orientation which is helped by defending opponents and problems properly.

While the theory is not entirely bad, there is no such thing as a window for a full on psycho-social shift in human affairs. We can look at the OW of the new left for instance. There was not revolution and if there was they needed something much more then a window. What they got was some commensalistic changes that happened over a long period of time to close out the 20th century. The change in social values was based on MUCH more then a sub generational window. It's probable that alt-right ideology might have a small commensalistic affect in terms of the societal reconstruction that is just around the corner after we go through this unraveling period. One can argue that the 50s was based on fascism to some degree in that immigration slowed down, there was a refocus on family and the construction of new 20th century surrogate activities. However reality is cyclical and the 50s was, in addition to not being a full on fascistic period, also the ground of being for the counter culture to come. I don't see why this type of cyclical dynamic will not continue. The fact is in either even radical ideology and orientation will have to reformulate seeing as the 68 model no longer works.

I love you you whip your dick out AND assume all this shit about me lol Buy me dinner first, k sweetheart? Jeez … I'm not that cheap a date!

What the fuck are you even talking about? I'm way back here at the actual topic: Peterson is a far right demagogue and you have to be brain damaged to think he's a "centrist". Pull your head out of your ass or I'll roll you down the street, like the human doughnut that you are.

Love how^ you

Give me concrete positions coming from is mouth and writing that show this. Me Bellamy and Bowman have already pointed out why that is not even close to being the case.

You floated arguments that stink like they're from 2016, before it was plain as day to all the world that these scumbags are fronting the alt right youtube pipeline. None of this shit is up for debate anymore, you can keep trying to turn the clocks back but the rest of us have moved on.

and what does before 2016 have to do with anything. We are talking hard definitions and how the ideologues in question define themselves based on those definitions. You're obviously deflecting because your leftarded argument can't overcome mine and the others on this thread calling BS.

coincidentally all people who have disavowed the anarchist movement because y'all are on a search for the perfect at the expense of the good, leaving you all as isolated wingnuts at the end of the search.

There is no anarchist movement. There are anarchists doing things, sometimes with other anarchists. Many anarchists don't have a clear idea of what it means to be an anarchist, and make it up as they go along. The wheel is constantly reinvented, because there is no continuity. Older anarchists have either become more "realistic" and become involved in non profit work or some shit, or have retreated and isolated themselves. And younger anarchists typically don't want to listen to elders anyway. I don't know the way out. Broadening anarchism's appeal often means watering it down until it's not recognizable any more. But doubling down on an already small and isolated militant tendency is likely just going to lead to more efficient repression of it by the State. There has to be a way to build popular support without sacrificing the combativeness typical of anarchist initiatives. That's the sweet spot that anarchists should be looking for if they hope to make any significant contribution to the fight against the existent.

Other poster here. In the age of information, the ideological arena has extended beyond the binary and tripartite aggregation and become a multi-faceted field jockeying for dominance, dissecting microscopic inferences from the use of a single word, and then projecting and full blown ideological profile upon a broad multi-opinionated author, who merely posits multiple alternatives within a conglomerate made up of drifting lost demographs.

WAY EARLIER, in this thread, @critic elaborated about why you shouldn't be listening to to the CLAIMS about their own positions from demagogues. Do I need to break out the dictionary for demagoguery? Their claims are deliberately misleading you stupid jackasses. None of you are willing to do the work of dissecting. All the info is there in the wake of charlottesville but you're too busy congratulating yourselves and claiming to have some special insight.

The foaming-at-the-mouth mccarthyism, which he packages WITH misogyny and transphobia (claiming these things are connected somehow because marxists?!?!) is why Peterson is definitely a far right reactionary. If you can't see it, the issue is behind your eyes and you're likely part of the problem.

No, I'm not going to waste my time holding your hand. Read the thread again, read the NYT article. Here's the link again

This dipshit sits in a house full of soviet art, repeating his mccarthy mantras to himself like a lunatic cult leader when he's not skyping with the kids who are the next batch of recruits. Ignore at your peril.

PS: I shouldn't say "none of you", just the usual stubborn ones really haha

Also, @critic, your analysis is exhaustive as usual but you're strawmanning me a bit as a effigy for everything you don't like about antifa kids. I'm not about deplatforming, I'm not saying police violence isn't a way more important issue and I'm not attempting to redirect any existing energy towards the worst of the far right.

"The basics" are things like learning self-defence, building networks of likeminds and staying connected to the larger communities around you, resisting the urge to slip further in to alienation and electric circuses, none of which should be limited to antifascism.

Yeah sorry, it sounded like you were saying "the basics" is fighting fascists and "abstract" is fighting police.

The Soviet art is part of his critique of Marxist cultural masse psychological manipulation and control, not to satisfy his aesthetic tastes.

Hi LeWay,
there is this great magazine called AdBusters out there. Check it out.

Yes, Detournment is an old Sit tactic

that is exactly why I, as a completely sane anti-fascist, hang nazi propaganda all around my home....

I'm working on a sculpture now, a bust, of Hitler with dreads, tattoos and piercings, because they have become the totalitarian norm. I suppose there will be the usual Antifa Idpol morons labelling me as a Nazi when they see it as advertising, rather than a statement on the inherent duality of all political ideology, or religion for the same reasons. Hitler merely provided what the masses of Europe, even a majority of western Euro. wanted, he was just the salesman of the current masse desire. Death of the author/salesman applies to politics also.

All up, Peterson is a salesman describing a social pathology and selling a cure, dishing out what the majority needs, a kick in their soft liberal asse(t)s, a deconstruction of their identity complexes, a recognition of original organic gender reproduction and the role of the warrior as the arbiter of aesthetics, a new process of guidance for infants and children to developed their own natural talents and endowments without race or gender doctrine of oppression interfering with their innate empathic tendencies and choices in life.

Have you ever heard of this thing under capitalism called ADVERTISING???

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Enter the code without spaces.