On Jordan “Cuck” Peterson, White Identity and the Jewish Problem
by Dissident Millennial
IN RESPONSE to heckling for him to publicly declare his position on the Jewish Question, Jordan B. Peterson completely destroys any credibility he may otherwise have had as a serious critic of political correctness and the anti-Western identity politics that have taken over today’s academic world.
Peterson’s mishap starts with the very title of his public editorial response — “On the so-called ‘Jewish Question’ ” — which is apparently meant to imply that there is no Jewish Question to begin with, and that the topic itself is merely a phantom issue conjured up in the minds of anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists. This despite the fact that the Jewish Problem dates back to antiquity and has been addressed in its modern form by some of the finest minds in the West (including Jews and non-Jews alike) for over two hundred years. Peterson’s article isn’t so much an argument as it is a finger-wagging sermon straight out of the cuckservative playbook:
The players of identity politics on the far right continue ever-so-pathologically to beat the anti-Semitic drum, pointing to the over-representation of Jews in positions of authority, competence and influence (including revolutionary movements). I’m called upon–sometimes publicly, sometimes on social media platforms–to comment on such matters, and criticized when I hesitate to do so (although God only knows why I would hesitate 🙂
Notice two things right off the bat here: 1) The beginning of Peterson’s straw-man argument — i.e., the way he characterizes his opponents as “pathological” so as to excuse himself from actually engaging any of their arguments; and 2) The smiley face emoji Peterson inserts at the end of his opening statement as if he was an adolescent girl replying to a text message from a schoolboy admirer. Is this really the renowned professor famous for encouraging young men to grow up and take responsibility for themselves?
So let’s take apart the far-right claims:
First, psychologically speaking: why do the reactionary conspiracy theorists even bother? This is a straightforward matter. If you’re misguided enough to play identity politics, whether on the left or the right, then you require a victim (in the right-wing case, European culture or some variant) and a perpetrator (Jews). Otherwise you can’t play the game (a YouTube video I made explicating the rules can be found here). Once you determine to play, however, you benefit in a number of ways. You can claim responsibility for the accomplishments of your group you feel racially/ethnically akin to without actually having to accomplish anything yourself. That’s convenient. You can identify with the hypothetical victimization of that group and feel sorry for yourself and pleased at your compassion simultaneously. Another unearned victory. You simplify your world radically, as well. All the problems you face now have a cause, and a single one, so you can dispense with the unpleasant difficulty of thinking things through in detail. Bonus. Furthermore, and most reprehensibly: you now have someone to hate (and, what’s worse, with a good conscience) so your unrecognized resentment and cowardly and incompetent failure to deal with the world forthrightly can find a target, and you can feel morally superior in your consequent persecution (see Germany, Nazi for further evidence and information).
Again, notice how Peterson fails to address legitimate criticism of Jews (i.e., that they are hypocrites who lobby against every form of nationalism except their own) and instead opts to simply pathologize his opponents. This is not a mature argument in the objective Western tradition, but rather a sloppy reiteration of the same Freudian tactics used by subversive Jews to undermine and “deconstruct” Western culture itself.
Second, in what manner (if any) are such claims true? Well, Jews are genuinely over-represented in positions of authority, competence and influence.
However, according to Peterson, this can all be explained by Jews having IQs which are “significantly higher” than average, and thus, Peterson claims:
There is no evidence whatsoever that Ashkenazi Jews are over-represented in any occupations/interests for reasons other than intelligence and the associated effects of intelligence on personality and political belief. Thus, no conspiratorial claims based on ethnic identity need to be given credence.
I beg to differ.
In an exhaustive landmark analysis of Ivy League university admissions titled “The Myth of American Meritocracy,” Ron Unz (who is himself of Jewish descent) destroys the notion that Ashkenazi intelligence accounts for Jews’ vast overrepresentation within the Ivy League university system and within the halls of power in America itself. Unz’s bombshell of an article is worth quoting at length:
Although the relative importance of these individual factors behind Jewish academic decline is unclear, the decline itself seems an unmistakable empirical fact, and the widespread unawareness of this fact has had important social consequences.
My casual mental image of today’s top American students is based upon my memories of a generation or so ago, when Jewish students, sometimes including myself, regularly took home a quarter or more of the highest national honors on standardized tests or in prestigious academic competitions; thus, it seemed perfectly reasonable that Harvard and most of the other Ivy League schools might be 25 percent Jewish, based on meritocracy. But the objective evidence indicates that in present day America, only about 6 percent of our top students are Jewish, which now renders such very high Jewish enrollments at elite universities totally absurd and ridiculous. I strongly suspect that a similar time lag effect is responsible for the apparent confusion in many others who have considered the topic.
For example, throughout his very detailed book, Karabel always seems to automatically identify increasing Jewish enrollments with academic meritocracy, and Jewish declines with bias or discrimination, retaining this assumption even when his discussion moves into the 1990s and 2000s. He was born in 1950, graduated Harvard in 1972, and returned there to earn his Ph.D. in 1977, so this may indeed have been the reality during his formative years. But he seems strikingly unaware that the world has changed since then, and that over the last decade or two, meritocracy and Jewish numbers have become opposing forces: the stricter the meritocratic standard, the fewer the Jews admitted.
Most of my preceding analysis has focused on the comparison of Asians with Jews, and I have pointed out that based on factors of objective academic performance and population size, we would expect Asians to outnumber Jews by perhaps five to one at our top national universities; instead, the total Jewish numbers across the Ivy League are actually 40 percent higher. This implies that Jewish enrollment is roughly 600 percent greater relative to Asians than should be expected under a strictly meritocratic admissions system.
Obviously, all these types of analysis may be applied just as easily to a comparison of Jews with non-Jewish whites, and the results turn out to be equally striking. . .
Consider the ratio of the recent 2007–2011 enrollment of Asian students at Harvard relative to their estimated share of America’s recent NMS semifinalists, a reasonable proxy for the high-ability college-age population, and compare this result to the corresponding figure for whites. The Asian ratio is 63 percent, slightly above the white ratio of 61 percent, with both these figures being considerably below parity due to the substantial presence of under-represented racial minorities such as blacks and Hispanics, foreign students, and students of unreported race. Thus, there appears to be no evidence for racial bias against Asians, even excluding the race-neutral impact of athletic recruitment, legacy admissions, and geographical diversity.
However, if we separate out the Jewish students, their ratio turns out to be 435 percent, while the residual ratio for non-Jewish whites drops to just 28 percent, less than half of even the Asian figure. As a consequence, Asians appear under-represented relative to Jews by a factor of seven, while non-Jewish whites are by far the most under-represented group of all, despite any benefits they might receive from athletic, legacy, or geographical distribution factors. The rest of the Ivy League tends to follow a similar pattern, with the overall Jewish ratio being 381 percent, the Asian figure at 62 percent, and the ratio for non-Jewish whites a low 35 percent, all relative to their number of high-ability college-age students.
Just as striking as these wildly disproportionate current numbers have been the longer enrollment trends. In the three decades since I graduated Harvard, the presence of white Gentiles has dropped by as much as 70 percent, despite no remotely comparable decline in the relative size or academic performance of that population; meanwhile, the percentage of Jewish students has actually increased. This period certainly saw a very rapid rise in the number of Asian, Hispanic, and foreign students, as well as some increase in blacks. But it seems rather odd that all of these other gains would have come at the expense of whites of Christian background, and none at the expense of Jews. . .
Fourteen years ago I published a widely-discussed column in the Wall Street Journal highlighting some of the absurdities of our affirmative action system in higher education. In particular, I pointed out that although Jews and Asians then totaled merely 5 percent of the American population, they occupied nearly 50 percent of the slots at Harvard and most of the other elite Ivies, while non-Jewish whites were left as the most under-represented student population, with relative numbers below those of blacks or Hispanics. Since then Jewish academic achievement has seemingly collapsed but relative Jewish enrollment in the Ivies has generally risen, while the exact opposite combination has occurred for both Asians and non-Jewish whites. I find this a strange and unexpected development. . .
Elite Colleges Look Neither Like America Nor Like America’s Highest-Ability Students
We are therefore faced with the clear conundrum that Jewish students seem to constitute roughly 6 percent of America’s highest-ability high school graduates and non-Jewish whites around 65–70 percent, but these relative ratios differ by perhaps 1000 percent from the enrollments we actually find at Harvard and the other academic institutions which select America’s future elites. [emphasis mine]
Has Peterson engaged any of this research — or any of the research done in a similar vein? [Rhetorical.] Is Peterson even aware of any of this information? Well, your guess on that front is about as good as mine. Personally, I think Peterson is a joke and that while his conception of Jewish genius may not be exaggerated with respect to his own IQ, it can in no way account for all of the massive over-representation of Jews in politics, finance, the media, the Ivy League university system, etc.
Finally, it is worth addressing Peterson’s ridiculous claim that proud identification with one’s kin group serves as a substitute for achievement and as a kind of psychological balm for incompetent losers. As John Bruce Leonard notes:
[H]istorically speaking, practically all of the great achievements of the West in terms of art, literature, politics, architecture, engineering, discovery, etc. etc., arose during historical periods in which men were accustomed to thinking in an “identitarian” way—not perhaps with respect to their race, but certainly with respect to their families, their nations, their peoples. Evidently, holding oneself to be part of a larger familial group is not so prejudicial to personal achievement as the Petersons of the world would have us believe.
This is the kind of basic historical understanding every literate person in the West used to possess, but in today’s affirmative action idiocracy, apparently we can’t even expect such rudimentary knowledge from a renowned PhD-holder seeking to lecture the rest of us.
The truth is that, contra Peterson’s faux-intellectual psychobabble, proud identification with one’s kin group serves as an impetus to greatness rather than as any kind of substitute for it. This sentiment was perhaps best expressed by the famous Norse verse William Pierce lived by:
Cattle die and kinsman die,
And so too must one die oneself.
But there is one thing I know that never dies,
And that is the fame of a dead man’s deeds.
. . . But apparently Peterson knows nothing about this either.
Finally, it is worth addressing just how insane, illiterate and pathological Peterson’s promotion of a-racial “individualism” is. As Ricardo Duchesne puts it in an article titled “Jordan Peterson’s Rejection of Identity Politics Allows White Ethnocide”:
Jordan Peterson’s rejection of identity politics makes no sense in the face of an establishment from left to right committed to the diversification of all Western nations through relentless immigration, which is fast reducing Whites to a minority, and is premised on the prohibition of White identity, while encouraging the inherently collectivist identities of non-Whites.
Peterson often says he is a “classical liberal” or a “libertarian” in response to charges that he is an Alt-Righter because he dismisses the claim that there is “White privilege.” He insists both leftists and Alt-Righters are into identity politics, the prioritization of group differences over individual choice and character. He values the Western ideal that the rights of an individual should not be determined by membership in a racial or a sexual group.
Peterson is a mainstream conservative inside an academic sea where only leftists are welcomed to navigate. He appears to be Alt-Right because he condemns the way our universities have been taken over by academics who sacrifice the peculiarities of individual identities with their relentless overtures to minority racial groups, Muslims, and LGBT people.
This attack on postmodernist identity politics is all good. The problem is that a politics of individualism in our current age of mass immigration and multicultural identities is fatal to White individuals. Europeans were uniquely responsible for a politics of individual rights, and this libertarian way of thinking worked as long as European nations were not open to millions of immigrants coming from inherently collectivist cultures. Europeans were classically liberal only under the taken-for-granted assumption that their nations were actually created and inhabited by a people with a strong ethnic identity, strong traditional customs, and ancestries. No nation was ever created by abstract individuals without ethno-national identities and a strong sense of who belongs and who does not, friends and enemies.
Western nations were unique in successfully combining individual rights with a strong ethnic identity, as was evident in their immigration restrictions before the 1960s. Minority rights for historical minorities is consistent with ethnic liberal nationalism. What is not consistent with liberal rights is the mandate that all Western nations must grant citizenship rights to millions of alien immigrants.
The libertarianism Peterson is defending is hardly “classical”; it is really a cultural Marxist version concocted by the same leftist academics he despises. John Locke (1632-1704) took for granted the fact that the “liberties” he valued were meant for “British” individuals rather than for hundreds of thousands of immigrants coming from vastly different collective cultures.
Perhaps Peterson the professor should do a little bit more reading and a little bit more thinking about race, politics, history and identity before casting aspersions upon his betters? Or is this just too much to ask in the Age of Idiocracy and Ingratitude which Peterson’s own standing epitomizes?
* * *