Peterson's article: https://jordanbpeterson.com/psychology/on-the-so-called-jewish-question/
>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).
This is an odd claim. In order to play identity politics you need a victim and a perpetrator? That doesn't sound like identity politics at all, it sounds like a critique of Cultural Marxism, which breaks the world down into an "oppressor and oppressed" dichotomy. But identity politics itself requires none of that, it simply requires identification with a group and a desire to see that group's interests advanced. No victim complex is necessary.
>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.
This is a commonly repeated trope, which is why I addressed it in my FAQ.
Let's just take a simple example. Let's say your grandfather was a great man. Maybe he had great character, and was a war hero, and built a successful company from scratch or some such thing. Let's say you take pride in his achievements, and you tell people what a great man your grandfather was, and try to emulate his example and be more like him.
Is this pathological in some way? Are you taking "responsibility" for his actions? Are you trying to "claim" them as your own? Are you saying you don't have to "accomplish anything" now because your grandfather was such a great guy, and so now you can sit on your ass and revel in his achievements?
Of course not. This would be a completely absurd analysis of your pride in your grandfather. And by the same token it is a completely absurd analysis of ethnic pride. We aren't claiming anything, not stealing anything, not using it as an excuse for passivity. On the contrary, if anything it is a call and a demand to action. We are showing reverence for a gift that was handed down to us, an inheritance passed to us from our ancestors. We recognize that they fought, worked, struggled, and often died in order to provide their posterity with a better future and a better life, and it is our responsibility to not let that legacy falter and vanish! And the only way to protect that legacy is through the same identity which inspired our ancestors.
>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.
The opposite is the case here. The world is radically simpler through an egalitarian lens. "We are all one race, the human race. We are all equal and group identity is wrong." How simple is that? I mean they teach this stuff in kindergarten.
No, the "unpleasant difficulty" is facing the harsh truths of the world, that tribalism is real and always has been, that ethnic groups have and continue to act for their own interests, that all people are NOT equal, that in fact some are born far more advantaged than others and there is little we can do about that, that race is real no matter how much you call people "racist" for recognizing it. That is the messy, difficult, complicated truth, and it is particularly difficult because we are conditioned to feel this sort of thinking is wrong.
And the straw man implicit here is that people like me simplistically blame everything on the Jews. In fact, I rarely talk about Jews at all. I recognize that Jews don't "control the world," but I still recognize they have disproportionate power and are using that power in their own interests (which is rational tribal behavior by the way).
>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
This is where Peterson goes completely off the rails with a slew of ad hominem (cowardly, incompetent, hateful, reprehensibly). Ok, some people do hate Jews. That is pretty clear. But that isn't the Jewish Question you are trying to debunk here...
I think what the Jews are doing is perfectly rational. They are working toward their ethnic interests. I would like to see my people working toward their own ethnic interests. There is no hatred here, even though there is opposition. Just like in sports, your team can try it's best to score goals and prevent the other team from scoring their own goals, but you both know that's just the game and you don't hate the other side for engaging in it.
And the reason Jews are winning the game so thoroughly is because our side refuses to acknowledge the game exists at all, precisely because of rhetoric like this from JBP. The Jews strategy is just to yell "ANTISEMITISM" and all the whites rush off to the sidelines to prove they aren't actually trying to win at the game, because that would be an absolute horror. It's no wonder they are trouncing us.
>Second, in what manner (if any) are such claims true? Well, Jews are genuinely over-represented in positions of authority, competence and influence.
Good that you at least acknowledge this, when this statements alone is enough for some to call you an antisemite.
>It's possible that we should be happy about this, rather than annoyed: is the fact that smart people are working hard for our mutual advancement really something to feel upset?
Well, that is really the point of contention here I suppose. Is it really our mutual advancement?
The war in Iraq. Was that for our mutual advancement? Really? Were our actions in Syria and Libya (and so on) all in white American interests, and not more about Israeli interests? I don't want to get too far off into the weeds here, but I don't buy it.
And when these unnecessary wars create waves of refugees, is it really in our interests to take these refugees in? These 2000 rabbis seem to think so. And sure, there are Christians who feel the same way, and obviously Jews are not monolithic, but is it not sensible for a nationalist like myself, who wishes to preserve American demographics, to think these sorts of commonly observable behavior patterns are not at all for our "mutual advancement?"
>In any case, the radical/identity-politics right wingers regard such accomplishment as evidence of a conspiracy.
No, it is evidence of ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is not a "conspiracy," and your labeling it a conspiracy is just an attempt to discredit a self-evident truth without an argument.
96% of blacks voted for Barack Obama. Does that mean there was a "black conspiracy" to get Obama elected? Of course not, they were simply voting in what they felt to be their ethnic interests.
In the same way, Jews often have ethnic interests which conflict with the interests of European peoples. Calling this a "conspiracy" is just a way to discredit what is really common sense: that ethnic groups have competing and often contradictory interests.
It is in Jewish interests for European nations to be more racially heterogeneous, as that reduces nationalist cohesion and thus reduces any potential threat of antisemitism. This is a rational and sensible position for Jews to take given the history of Jews in Europe, but that does not mean it is in the interests of Europeans to be displaced in their own homelands.
>a) The significantly higher than average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews >Simply put: if a very complex job or role requires an IQ of 145, three standard deviations above the mean and characteristic of less than one percent of the general population, then a group with a higher average IQ will be exceptionally over-represented in such enterprises.
Absolutely true. But have you broken down the numbers here?
I don't buy the 115 Jewish IQ number but let's just accept it for the sake of argument. We should expect some overrepresentation due to higher IQ and thus some overrepresentation among Jews in elite positions. But Jews are only around 2% of the population, and that small percentage must be factored into the overall representation as well.
Luckily someone in the comments did some math for me so I'll shamelessly grab their work:
>For a 6 Mil. pop of Jews with 115 mean IQ and 15 SD, the probability of someone being higher than 145 is (1-0.9772) (using the "2.0" z-score andfinding the probability). Thats 6,000,000 * 0.0228 = 136,800 Very Smart Jews. For 200 mil pop of Whites with 105 mean IQ and 15 SD, the probability of someone being higher than 145 is (1-0.9953) (again, usingz-score for "2.66" and finding the probability). 200,000,000 * 0.0047 =940,000 Very Smart Whites. 145+ Jews: 136,800. Smart Whites: 940,000. Total Smart Jews and Whites = 1,076,800. Total Smart Jews as a percentage of total Smart People = 136,800/1,076,800 = 12.7%. So if Smart Jews fill more than 12.7% of "145+ IQ position jobs", then there is something else going on.
I'm sure people will nitpick the details, but this is a decent baseline for debate. So if we looked at, say, heads of major media corporations and saw a greater than 12% representation of Jews, it is a sign that perhaps something else (like ethnocentrism) is going on here. This is already a bit long-winded so I'll leave that as an exercise for others.
In any case, it is clear JBP hasn't actually done the work necessary to refute just this one claim.
>So, what's the story? No conspiracy. Get it? No conspiracy.
I guess using a hyperbolic term, twice, in bold, is supposed to settle the case. But the case is far from settled, and this was a particularly weak set of arguments from a normally well-spoken man.
Identity politics is not going away, it is only going to become more pertinent as growing ethnic groups fight over the last remaining scraps of Western civilization.
Date of publication: March 23, 2018