Media, Social Science
comments 86

Libel of Jordan Peterson by the Forward—A Story of Journalistic Failure

On Friday, a left-leaning Jewish magazine, the Forward, published an article by Ari Feldman titled “Is Jordan Peterson Enabling Jew Hatred?” accompanied by a picture of Adolf Hitler giving the Nazi salute next to Peterson. The Forward explains Vox-style: “Jordan Peterson is a public intellectual adored by neo-Nazis, white supremacists and conspiracy theorists. The neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer called [him] ‘The Savior of Western Civilization.’”

What did Peterson do to become, according to the Forward, comparable to Hitler? In a recent blog post addressing anti-Semitism in the alt-right, Peterson “attributed [Jewish] influence to Jewish intelligence—an old anti-Semitic dog whistle”–

Lipstadt said that Peterson’s statements on Jewish intelligence reminded her of Kevin MacDonald, a professor of psychology who the Southern Poverty Law Center has described as “the neo-Nazi movement’s favorite academic.” MacDonald has written several books criticizing Jewish intellectual culture. (Peterson links to a critique of one of MacDonald’s books at the end of his blog post on Jewish intelligence.) Lipstadt said that MacDonald’s academic language obscures the anti-Semitism behind his opinions. She worries the same is true of Peterson.

Ari Feldman appears to be completely unaware of why Peterson took up the issue of anti-Semitism at this moment, why he attributed “alleged” Jewish influence to IQ, and what this has to do with Kevin MacDonald. Although this story is familiar to many Quillette readers, I recount it here.

On March 10, University of Oxford graduate student Nathan Cofnas published an academic paper criticizing the theories of Kevin MacDonald. MacDonald explains Jewish overrepresentation in liberal political movements with the theory that Judaism is a “group evolutionary strategy.” In pursuit of their group evolutionary strategy, Jewish intellectuals supposedly work to undermine white-gentile culture to improve the relative position of Jews.

Cofnas proposed an alternative theory, which he called the “default hypothesis”: “Because of their above-average intelligence and concentration in influential urban areas, Jews in recent history have been overrepresented in all major intellectual and political movements, including conservative movements, that were not overtly anti-Semitic.” Cofnas documented numerous examples of distorting history and misrepresenting sources in MacDonald’s work, and argued that the evidence favors the default hypothesis rather than MacDonald’s conspiracy theory.

Jordan Peterson was one of the first prominent people to promote Cofnas’s paper, and to brave the backlash from the anti-Semitic mob. On March 11 he tweeted it, writing: “A straightforward explanation for the high proportion of Jewish people among intellectuals (and necessary critique of a competing account).” (Other prominent people who promoted Cofnas’s paper included Steven Pinker and Christina Hoff Sommers.) Nazi apologists and MacDonald acolytes attacked Peterson on Twitter.

So what did he do? A week later he tweeted a follow-up article by Cofnas and me. And on March 23rd he wrote the blog post where he addressed anti-Semites as follows: “So, what’s the story? No conspiracy. Get it? No conspiracy. Jewish people are over-represented in positions of competence and authority because, as a group, they have a higher mean IQ.”

Here’s the thing: Peterson is right. The average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is the highest of any ethnic group in the world. Maybe there’s a controversy about the causes of group differences in IQ (though experts agree that IQ is highly heritable), but there’s no serious controversy about the fact that Jews have a high IQ. That’s a fact, not an “anti-Semitic dog whistle.”

Let’s review what happened: A Jewish academic wrote a paper criticizing Kevin MacDonald, who is the most popular intellectual in the world among anti-Semites. Jordan Peterson promoted the paper that criticized MacDonald, and when he received pushback from anti-Semites, he doubled down and insisted that the anti-Semites were wrong. Then the Forward came along and declared that Peterson was engaged in “anti-Semitic dog whistl[ing],” and put a picture of him next to Hitler.

You can’t make this stuff up.  

The attack on Peterson by the Forward was click-bait disguised as reporting.  This new genre of “news” combines fake outrage by authors and masochistic curiosity by readers who lack the time or discipline to do proper research.  Like the SPLC, the Forward has lost all credibility by equating unorthodox thinkers with common bigots.  

 

Jonathan Anomaly is a faculty fellow at the University of Gothenburg’s Center for Collective Action and Antimicrobial Resistance for the summer of 2018. 

86 Comments

  1. Daniel Rizza says

    Name calling is a strategy for those without a strategy.

      • Alex B says

        I’d call it an effective strategy, but not a good one.
        It’s becoming less effective with time, too. There’s material fatigue on the act, as would-be (/so-called) racists care less and less about the label.

    • Yes, interestlingly, Dyson used it against Peterson in the recent infamous Munk Debate and thereby shot himself in the foot and lost the debate.

  2. brianoflondon says

    It would be somewhat more useful if you could describe the Jewish Daily Forward as one of the preeminent far-left (or progressive) Jewish magazines because plenty of us Jews (especially here in Israel) are often and repeatedly horrified by many of the things they publish.

    • Alex says

      Their latest attempt ‘Richard Spencer might be right about Israel’ showed clear signs of mental disorder.

      Could have been a realPeerReview instant hit, had there been any plausible rational to laugh it off.

    • alan white says

      Being horrified about the Forward is not enough unless you express that horror in a convincing manner. It is not possible to condemn Nazi death camps and then keep silent about communist death camps.

      • Eric Winters says

        To be clear, I am not pro Death Camp of any flavor.

  3. Burton says

    So, to say that Jews are smarter than the average, and to say that it’s good for us that smart people (like a lot of Jews) are in positions of competence – which is what Peterson actually said – has become an anti-Semitic statement… I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

    Remove the pen from that journalist and give him to read some intellectually honest pieces of journalism like this one.

    • Fionn says

      I’ve often mentioned at dinnertime that there’s a large body of empirical research evincing the high average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews. My sister, on every occasion, has accused me of being racist and xenophobic, insisting that there are no genetic differences in brain structure between races and that even claiming that some races are prone to certain beneficial traits is “positive discrimination”.

      Hell, my brother once mentioned in passing that he’d seen someone in the street and thought they might be Jewish, based on their facial appearance. My sister accused him of being racist for drawing inferences about someone’s race based on their appearance. The rest of my family looked at her in disbelief and asked how it was any different from saying someone looked like they might be African, or Italian, or Korean. She responded with “that’s different”.

      My sister is 24 years old with a 2.1 in history and political science, God help us.

        • markbul says

          Given the history of virulent anti-semitism in Poland, it’s hard for me to figure where your’e going with that one.

        • La migra says

          The ashkenazi are genetically European… it’s the Sephardic Jews who are middle easterners

      • alan white says

        Don’t blame your sister; those ideas did not originate with her. She leaned that crap at her university

    • “The Jew is not smarter than we are, rather only more clever and craftier. His system cannot be defeated economically, he follows entirely different moral principles than we do. It can only be broken through political means.”

      — Joseph Goebbels

  4. Kelly Horsley says

    Just ANOTHER example of “journalists” pushing an agenda with untruths and innuendo. Journalism used to be a noble profession. Now it’s is a parody of what it once stood for. And there is very real danger in this tactic. We rely on an unfettered press to ask the tough questions, to get to the bottom of the matter, and to shed light in the dark places. They’ve been exposed again and again and again as liars and scoundrels, yet recoil in disgust when their failings are brought to light, as if they are above reproach. I’m not sure how they’ll ever be able to regain the lofty position they once held at this point.

  5. Truevo says

    That article on the Forward was one of the most silly, defamatory and shameful articles I’ve ever read. It was not just a strawman attack. It was clear that the author was trying, like a very bad lawyer, to find evidence of guilt artificially constructed on nothing, also through “testimonies” from people who likely haven’t read or seen anything about Peterson.

    Heck, in the article there was also a video of Peterson, it was enough to listen to it and understand how everything that had been written was rubbish, misunderstandings, intellectual dishonesty.

    I didn’t see journalists of a so poor caliber and so deontologically dishonest from a lot of time.

  6. Vasiliy says

    As JBP often says – the facts that Feldman is a jew and Forward self-positions as “jews” magazine don’t imply that they represent jews.
    I read that article by Ari Feldman and was disgusted by its low quality.
    Keep up the good fight Dr. Peterson on behalf of sane and reasonable people. And thank god we have Quillete now.
    Greeting form an Israeli jew 😉

  7. Truevo says

    To represent Peterson as someone who is on the side of anti-Semitism, or to put him in an image with Hitler’s Nazi salute is shameful and defamatory towards him.

    Forward article compared him to MacDonald, while it seems to me that on the contrary the visions of the two on the “Jewish question” are – as this article has rightly pointed out – irreconcilable. For Peterson – and for every sensible person – it is preferable that in positions of competence and authority there should be intelligent people, and guess what… it happens that many of these people are Jewish. Problems with that? Not for Peterson, on the contrary.

    But some intellectually dishonest leftist necessarily have to find their nothing to justify their criticism.

  8. Gospel says

    So what you’re saying is that Pinker is anti-Semite… (cit.)

  9. The Left is REALLY, REALLY scared of Dr. Peterson and the Intellectual Dark Web. That’s why they’re screaming and ranting at such a fever pitch. They know it’s a fight to the death in their insane culture wars and Dr. Peterson is ripping open the pieties and hollow bromides of the Left. I wonder if the Professor has the stomach for what he’s unleashing and whether ordinary people realize just how toxic and vicious the Left has become – it itself incredibly dangerous.

    • eric winters says

      They have no real counter to the core ideas, and thus can only scream at the sky.

  10. BrotherJoe says

    This is one of the most preposterous articles I ever read. The fact that Lipstadt joined the bandwagon leaves me speechless.
    Jordan Peterson has really become one of the most impactful thinkers of our time as proven by constant assault on him personally.
    So far no skeletons, so it all bounces of him… Jordan « I am very very careful with my words » Peterson.

  11. Jack B. Nimble says

    ‘………..Maybe there’s a controversy about the causes of group differences in IQ (though experts agree that IQ is highly heritable), but there’s no serious controversy about the fact that Jews have a high IQ…..’

    It’s bad enough for the author of this article to present opinion on IQ as fact, but [even worse] if you read the Haier interview that is linked in the above sentence, nowhere are the words ‘heritable’ or ‘heritability’ used, not even in the comments.

    Was the article in “The Forward” a libel? Most of the article is devoted to quoting Peterson and his critics. I personally found the title “Is Jordan Peterson Enabling Jew Hatred?” offensive, but I’m not sure if a question should be considered libelous.

    Also, the sentence “…….Yet behind the father figure role he [Peterson] affects lie darker preoccupations with Hitler, Marxists and the “radical left” on college campuses…….” may be loaded, but I didn’t find it inaccurate. Peterson and some of his former students acknowledge that he has been thinking about Communism and Nazism, and what they say about human nature, since age 13. Maybe the term ‘darkness’ refers to the topics Peterson keeps returning to, rather than his own inner darkness. If so, it is not a libel.

    • Kevin says

      That is a thoughtful analysis, Jack B Nimble. Forward’s attack on Peterson can be scurrilous and untrue. But that does not necessarily make it illegal.

    • Brian says

      Jack B Nimble, you are wrong: high Ashkenazi Jewish IQ is extremely well documented, and if you follow the links, you’ll find Cochran and Harpending’s paper giving an evolutionary explanation for its emergence.

      The Haier interview discusses his new book on the neuroscience of intelligence. That book discusses the heritability of IQ. So does Neven Sesardic’s book, Making Sense of Heritability, which I also recommend.

      • Jack B. Nimble says

        My comment concerned the opinion expressed by the author that “…..experts agree that IQ is highly heritable……” When you read the phrases ‘experts agree’ or ‘everyone knows’ without much documentation, it should be clear that the author is just blowing smoke.

        Look, any textbook on human or general genetics will provide examples where genetic influences play a huge role in human intelligence. For example, Trisomy-21 or Down syndrome is associated with lower IQ, but since the vast majority of Down children are born to normal-IQ parents and are themselves sterile, the heritability of this condition is essentially zero.

        Genes with small and/or pleiotropic effects on IQ, of the sort Haier is interested in, undoubtedly exist, but even if we accept at face value [I don’t] the heritability estimates of 0.7 to 0.8, there still remains the fact that heritability studies are descriptive and retrospective, rather than prescriptive or predictive. Strongly heritable traits are not necessarily irremediable!

        • Rosenmops says

          If IQ wasn’t heritable, species wouldn’t have evolved to become smarter. Evolution only works on things that are heritable.

          • Jack B. Nimble says

            Your idea is interesting and possibly true in a theoretical sense. Species-level evolution involving extinct ancestral species [technically, cladogenesis or long-term anagenesis]* currently can only be studied with fossils or ancient DNA. Since neither of those sorts of data says anything about IQ, this is not a convincing argument. The most recent cladogenetic split involving extant species [human versus chimp] is too distant in time to be a useful comparison point for IQ purposes.

            *https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-cladogenesis-and-anagenesis

        • Peter Kriens says

          I think the author provides references to scientific studies that backup his claim? Why would the sterileness of Down (a huge breakdown of the genetic machinery, say anything about more subtle genetic aspects of IQ and heritability? Isn’t Mendel highly predictive? And clearly, we can “fix” things, it is called breeding and is rightfully not acceptable in our modern societies.

          Quite confused in what you say here.

          • Jack B. Nimble says

            In reverse order, I was thinking of remediation or ‘fixing’ via conventional medical intervention, not selective breeding or gene editing. See for example, “Phenylketonuria” in Wikipedia, section “Treatment”.

            Mendel’s laws say nothing relevant to selection or evolution, since the alleles that are segregating and assorting are ASSUMED to be selectively neutral.

            Finally, Down syndrome, phenylketonuria, chromosomal deletions and rearrangements, etc. are relevant to this discussion in that these mental retardation syndromes are presented in textbooks as being genetically-caused. So the argument that some scientists don’t accept genetic causation of retardation and IQ deficits is a straw-man. The ‘subtle’ effects of genes with small and possibly pleiotropic effects on intelligence are extremely difficult to study even in model organisms, and require a better experimental design than that emanating from human adoption studies.

            IQ is not like obesity or diabetes. In those cases, we can measure the environmental inputs like diet, exercise, etc., and combine those results with genetic data such as genes coding for insulin receptors, immune system proteins, etc.. But what are the relevant environmental inputs for human intelligence?

  12. djf says

    The Forward is written from a certain kind of warped, far-left, essentially anti-Zionist “Jewish” perspective, but it is not “preeminent” or even intellectually respectable. It is the progressive Jewish equivalent of RT. It is the publication for American Jews who would enthusiastically support Corbyn if they lived in Britain.

  13. The title of this article is “Is Jordan Peterson Enabling Jew Hatred?”. It doesn’t ask if he is personally a fervid Jew hater. The truth is that many of his followers don’t like Jews very much. I found some of his followers responded to his tweets were White supremacists and given to antisemitic opinions He supports Christianity which means creating an us versus them mentality. By privileging your own religion you inevitably reject those who are not part of your ingroup.He covertly supports Trump a populist and demagogue who appeals to the baser instincts. Methinks Peterson doth protest too much . Know thyself.

    • Fluffy Buffalo says

      Do you feel comfortable writing this? I mean, your arguments are really weak. JBP is not responsible for every one of this “followers”. He has repeatedly and explicitly criticized the alt-right as well as all form of ethnic supremacist movements, and made his contempt for the Nazis crystal-clear. What else can the man do? Find everyone who has watched a video of his and subject them to a psychological test to figure out if they are a right-wing douchebag, and then put them in a Gulag for a round of brainwashing? Something tells me that would not be his style…
      As for the “us versus them”, that argument proves way too much – essentially anyone who is in favor of any particular thing or focused on one particular audience could be accused of being divisive and oppressive. That said, in this particular instance it’s particularly weak, seeing how Peterson has invested a lot of time in a lecture series on biblical stories, which so far deals exclusively with the old-testament stories and conveys a sense of “look at the brilliant insights the Jews had into human nature”, not “ha-ha, everyone knows that Christianity is better”.

    • Butter Balls says

      By your logic every religious person is a bigot, including Jews themselves.

    • zarathirstra – Methinks you are deluded… He’s just done a series of lectures on the Old Testament expressing overwhelming respect for the contributions it has made to the Western ethos. I get no sense he has an anti-Semitic bone in his body. His detractors, you among them I guess, either don’t have a clue and don’t care or you are the racist/hater because he’s a WHITE MAN firmly against radical leftism. That’s the reason he has a target on his back.

  14. pb says

    Thanks for the dis-assemble instructions. I suppose Marx was Jewish. And that Peterson’s 1 in 3 stasi informers would apply to Jewish populations, in a general sense. Chesterton, was it?, said Poets don’t end up mad, but plenty of chess players (“thinkers”) do.

  15. AC Harper says

    First they dismiss you, then they call you a racist or a sexist, then they try to ban you speaking, then you win.

  16. Paul Brown says

    You obviously haven’t taken the journalist course is plausible deniability. That should have been”And is Ben Shapiro Dr Mengele?”

  17. I thought the Forward piece was an outrageous smear, but the rather bare attempts to shore up the “default hypothesis” that Jews dominate because they are innately more intelligent, aren’t much better. Back in World War I (when US Jews were still predominantly working class), Jewish enlistees tended to test worse for IQ than WASPs (who at that time dominated the professions).

    More likely, it comes down to numbers – a model minority has to be numerous enough to constitute a professional class, but not so numerous so as to weaken the bonds of collegiality between its members.

    Witness, for example, the Palestinians, who as a broad yeoman class were dominated by Jews in Palestine, and yet, when they migrated to Latin America, quickly became a model minority themselves in countries such as Belize and El Salvador. In much the same way, Sunnis traditionally dominated Shia in Iraq, despite being the minority yet in Syria, Shia dominate Sunnis, again, despite the fact that they are a minority. A small Alawite religious sect has dominated Syria for much of its modern history.

    • Peter Kriens says

      Confused. I thought Harvard and Yale had limits on Jews early last century?

      From http://www.businessinsider.fr/us/the-ivy-leagues-history-of-discriminating-against-jews-2014-12

      “The only way to prevent this, Lowell argued, was to impose strict quotas and restrictions. Ideally, Lowell wanted to cap Harvard’s Jewish population at 15% of the student body, according to Karabel. The size of the Jewish student body had quickly risen from 7% of freshmen in 1900 to 10% in 1909, 15% in 1915, 21.5% in 1922, and 27.6% in 1925.”

      • Don’t be. You are exactly correct that Jewish intelligence rose in concert with college attendance. After all, IQ tests mainly assess the kinds of abstract skills that one tends to acquire in a college environment:-

        “A similar pattern could be seen from studies of two generations of Mizrahi Jewish children in Israel: the older generation had a mean IQ of 92.8, the younger of 101.3. And it wasn’t just a Jewish thing. Chinese Americans recorded average IQ scores of 97 in 1948, and 108.6 in 1990. And the gap between African Americans and white Americans narrowed by 5.5 points between 1972 and 2002.”

        https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/02/the-unwelcome-revival-of-race-science

  18. So if Forward “libeled” Peterson is he planning to sue? I haven’t seen Claire Lehmann calling for a lawsuit yet, as she did when Sam Harris didn’t like SPLC’s opinion.

    • But I expect that Koch brother employee Johnny Anomly doesn’t know what “libel” means.

  19. Mark says

    There is an upside: I was a progressive leftie up until a few months ago. Then the Peterson-Newman interview broke, and I went down the rabbit hole.

    After months of watching Peterson’s videos, reading Quillette, and watching Dave Rubin’s show on Youtube, I’m no longer a progressive leftie, because I see how easily I was manipulated by the media. I see their blatant lies, misrepresentation, and I see how toxic postmodern thinking has become.

    Keep up the good work, guys!

    • Peter Kriens says

      I think one of the qualities of this site is to always doubt movements … 🙂

    • Jeff York says

      Mark, good for you. “Sunlight is the best disinfectant” and “Facts are stubborn things.”

  20. Fabio says

    The piece in “Forward” is grotesque and – to use one of Peterson’s favorite words – reprehensible. Kevin McDonald’s theory is extravagant and only accepted by a few anti-semites, while Ashkenazi intelligence is widely accepted as a fact. Steven Pinker (himself a left-leaning jew) has an excellent lecture on youtube dedicated only to the topic of Ashkenazi intelligence, basically with the same conclusions of Peterson. Conflating the two thesis is a desperate attempt at libeling someone who has a long history of denouncing anti-semitism.

  21. Haggis says

    If you do not think that nepotism is one of the main factors for Jewish success in the West then you are deluded. If it was purely intelligence then Ashenkenazis would perhaps hold 5-10% of high positions in the media/academia, while what we see is Hollywood at numbers of 80%, many media outlets with between 30-50%, and often 80% if you only count the upper echelons, the US supreme court was 50% or more recently, and really ican go on with these lists. Elite whites also practice nepotism to the disadvantage of others, and this is wrong too – but just as the old guard like to keep themselves in all the best positiobs, so too do the Jews, and their reason for helping eachother is purely tribal.

    Assuming the tests are to be believed, and the sampling sizes for Ashkenazis have been significantly smaller than those for whites/blacks/hispanics so that is a big if, then they are only 10 IQ points higher than the average caucasian in the US. Jews make up around 2% of the population with Caucasians over 60%. A relatively high distribution of that 60% are above 110 IQ. So while Jewish intelligence might make them over represented in intellectual fields, the idea that them being even 10% of a company would be strange as that is a huge over representation for a 2%. The fact that they are often 50-80% is quite frankly ridiculous.

    Another commenter noted they had the advantage of being a small community that helps each other in ways a large community would not. This is true, and while it might not be a conspiracy theory.. it is nepotism and it is unmeritocratic, and should be opposed by so-called liberals.

    • Jay Salhi says

      “If you do not think that nepotism is one of the main factors for Jewish success in the West then you are deluded.”

      So winning a Fields Medal or becoming world chess champion is all down to nepotism?

      • Haggis says

        I would recommend that you read the rest of the post. There are exceptional Jews who have earned their positions via meritocracy, just as there are exceptional individuals from all backgrounds. What we are talking about here is rather large institutions like Hollywood, universities, the US government and journalism outlets like CNN or Fox. Somehow Jewish people make up the vast majority of the leadership of many of these institutions.

        We could get into the nitty-gritty mathematics and work out exactly how ‘superior’ a group would have to be to experience a certain level of over-representation in any given field, and there are individuals who have done so if you wish to do some further reading. However with the numbers we are dealing with it is not even necessary. Jews are 2% of the population, and only 10IQ points on average superior to whites. Whites are 60% of the population, and a sizeable proportion of that 60% have IQs in the 110s, 120s and 130s. If you have ever seen a chart documenting the ‘curve’ of IQ with the majority in the middle, and sloping downwards (indicating less numbers) of people to the higher or lower extremes – you will see that there are a LOT of US whites in the 110/20s range, far more in fact than the entirety of the Jewish population in the US. So even if Jews are on average a fair bit more intelligent, there is no way that 2% of the population should be 80% of Hollywood or CNN leadership. There is no way they should be 50% of the US Supreme Court. Feel free to look at the numbers in politics, journalism, media and academia if you wish – I am speaking in very broad-terms here, but I think it is beyond obvious that a fair amount of these Jews are aiding their fellows Jews into getting positions based upon tribal familiarity than stand-alone merit.

        Now I am not passing any judgement regarding the consequences of these truths, but it does need to be stated when we have articles like the one above, and people like Jordan Peterson making clearly erroneous statements. In my opinion it is actually these sorts of idiotic statements that are driving a lot of more intelligent people towards an ‘anti-Semitic’ outlook, as to anyone who has thought about it or done a little bit of research such statements seem like a ‘cover-up’ intended to misdirect attention from perceived ‘Jewish supremacy’. It would be far better if everyone understood that Jews, like many groups, often favour their own over others – and then we can all get to work trying to get a more diverse range of views and opinions in schools, television and politics. We have already done so by trying to get more black and Asian voices in many areas where it was previously dominated by whites, and it is beyond time that we get more white, asian, black and hispanic voices in these areas dominated by Jews.

        • David says

          So you’re saying that 25% of Nobel Prizes being awarded to Jews is a corruption and they are undeserving due to…. aggregate statistics?

          Someone notify Einstein that he is a victim of nepotism…..

  22. Haggis's theory is haggard says

    Wow, Haggis, good to see some crack pots like you finally made it to this story. Sorry dude, your statistics from Unz have been debunked. Why keep mentioning his initial study without mentioning the articles that challenged it? Perhaps confirmation bias by someone who wants an excuse to blame a certain group for your woes?

    Sure, there are sometimes in-group preferences. The Irish have been predominant in US fire departments, and Italians in US policing, in part because of networks of immigrants (“nepotism” in your words). Asian and Jewish and Indian immigrants are no different. They sometimes rely on networks to help each other adjust and find jobs. But if you substitute Asian for Jews, you’ll find that Asians are vastly over-represented in hospitals, research labs, banking, and… mathematics. Asian conspiracy?

    If, as many alt-righters believe, Jews are conspiring to dispossess gentiles of their culture and property, the fact that about half marry outside of Judaism, and many don’t actually care about religion (Jews may be the least religious ethnic group in America) strongly suggests you are wrong.

    • I’m not very familiar with the subject of supposed Jewish preeminence, but I can follow an argument, and it seems like all you’ve done here is taken someone’s attempt to reasonably explain a phenomenon and smeared them as a “crack pot” and an “alt-righter”. If you think the argument or the information it’s built on is wrong, why not just say so? Why go straight to name calling?

  23. Haggis says

    So your argument is that I am wrong because I am right? That groups are tribal and put their own interests above those of the other. As you mentioned many other groups help their own over others too, jobwise to the detriment of natives. My argument was simply that IQ wasn’t the biggest factor, and your response despite deriding me actually made the same assertion.

    Now there is a general point to be made about how “colour-blind”(or more appropriately tribe-blind) people are going to be at a disadvantage against those who work for their own collective advantage over others. This can also happen within a tribe, where a specific family or group help only their own – leading to them having an advantage over the rest of society. This is nepotism. Meritocracy is no longer important, it is not about how high your IQ is or how hard you work, but what family, group or tribe you belong to.

    A final point should be made about why a small group using nepotism to wield power in the areas of academia, the media and the government is more dangerous than taking over Walmart or a hospital. All instances of nepotism should be opposed, but the only harm an all Polish cleaning company does is to the carcar choices of a non-Pole. Jews taking over opinion forming institutions like universities and Hollywood, and the government; is a bigger problem because they can then push their agendas even if they are against the will of the masses. An obvious example today is how many Jews are far more left wing, and often supportive of homosexuality and abortion; where the majority of whites, blacks and Hispanics think such things are wrong. Nonetheless Jews get to change the law because they are over represented in the ‘right’ places, and they can therefore force others to accept their beliefs when they do not want to.

    … And it is because of things like that which have actually happened that many think there is a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. In reality it is just nepotism in important positions undermining the beliefs of other groups.

  24. asdf says

    Haggis already hits up all these points pretty well. We should expect more Jewish intellectuals, but not as many as we get in certain professions. IQ is high but population too low for this level of dominance. Generally speaking Asians and non-elite whites (especially those from flyover country) are underrepresented in elite roles relative to considerations of IQ/population size.

    “you’ll find that Asians are vastly over-represented in hospitals, research labs, banking, and… mathematics. Asian conspiracy?”

    If you only hire your co-ethnics even when there are better applicants that is certainly the definition of a conspiracy…

    All groups practice nepotism, but that’s a problem. We’ve worked very hard at breaking down nepotism networks among white ethnics because of the issues it raised. One very much gets the impression “meritocracy for thee but not for me” vibe which smacks of bad dealing and threatens to pull the hole thing down. Your playing “defect” in the game, then using any rhetorical dirty dealing trick you can to prevent people from playing “defect” back. You want to live in a place with lots of tribal nepotism go enjoy the middle east. Stop treating meritocracy as a commons to be hypocritically exploited.

    Having your opinion making elite have fundamentally different values then the masses is an obvious problem. This is even a problem within white people (see concept of flyover country), but is made worse if you have a group that doesn’t see itself as a part of the society they rule.

    Fundamentally, Jews act like an ownership class in their own society (Israel), but not in societies where they are an elite minority. So for instance Israel is allowed to protect its borders, be an openly stated ethno-state, etc. Meanwhile, gentile nations are denied these things, and one of the biggest opponents of that denial are Jews. In Israel Jews are right wing, outside Israel they are left wing.

    This isn’t too different from any other market dominant minorities, so I don’t think its a uniquely Jewish thing. If we were talking about Chinese in some parts of the world I would be in full support of a high IQ elite runnings things so a low IQ minority couldn’t fuck it all up. Go read Amy Chua. But white people were running society just fine with their high IQs before Jews achieved the position they have today.

    Lastly, talk of religious attendance is silly. Judaism isn’t an evangelizing religion. Its basically an ethnicity and we all know it.

    It’s sad what is happening to secular Jews in the west. The differential fertility between them and the Jews of Israel is one of the strongest arguments in favor or right-wing ethno states. It’s literally the difference between life and death.

    • asdf and Haggis are not credible says

      “Outside Israel Jews are left wing.” Nope, not in Europe. You’re taking a contingent contemporary fact about a majority of American Jews and somehow making it about Jews in general outside Israel (which, by the way, is 20% Arab). There are historical reasons why, in the 20th century, more Jews in the US started turning leftward (members of groups who are discriminated against tend to do that). And guess what, that’s changing right before our eyes with the emergence of thought leaders like Ben Shapiro and David Horowitz.

      You read people like MacDonald and don’t challenge your priors because mainstream academics don’t tread in this area. Their accounts of Jewish behavior, like their statistics, are not especially credible, but since they don’t go through the usual methods of peer-reviewed journals, and only write for readers who already agree with them, they create the illusion of “forbidden knowledge” for people like you, who uncritically recycle their claims.

      • asdf says

        Jews in Europe are pretty afraid of being flooded by Muslims that want to blow them up and that is affecting their politics some lately. It’s also not much of a refutation of the basic point that Jews practice nepotistic ethnic self interest (basically everyone except whites of this generation do so). If importing Muslims in massive numbers has been deemed bad for European Jews then they vote strategically in the best interest of Jews. When the mass of migrants isn’t hostile to Jewish interests, such as Latinos in America, its much easier for the left to represent Jewish interests without competing with other interest groups that are supposed to be in the tent.

        I’ve never read MacDonald. I’ve read a lot on the subject from a lot of sources and have of course lived a life and seen things firsthand. My best man was Jewish, and his whole family would probably be the first to confirm and complain about a whole host of Jewish stereotypes.

    • Michael K says

      really vast generalization, and I think you’ve just bought into the AR narrative. “So for instance Israel is allowed to protect its borders, be an openly stated ethno-state, etc. Meanwhile, gentile nations are denied these things, and one of the biggest opponents of that denial are Jews”

      going on my facebook timeline, the most radical people posting against Israel and its border policy are American Jews. turns out that these same people are also pretty radical against American borders.

      all you see from this though is “American Jew is against gentile borders” and then you compare them to an Israeli nationalist who is ‘pro-Israeli borders.’ this is selective bias. meanwhile, there are plenty of pro-Israeli borders American Jews and they tend to feel the same way about gentile borders.

  25. Jonathan Levy says

    @asdf

    “In Israel Jews are right wing, outside Israel they are left wing.”

    This is wrong, though I appreciate that it looks that way from a great distance, especially if you do not read hebrew and are not in the habit of distinguishing between different groups of Jews.

    In Israel, the Jewish elites are left-wing, and the mass of the population is center-right. To appreciate this, it is sufficient to listen to one speech by the current minister of culture (from a right-wing government) complaining about the domination of left-wing thinking in the (Israeli) media, judiciary, theater, etc.

    In Europe, the Jewish elites are left-wing, and the greater mass of Jews are center-right. Only the Jews in the elites are ever interviewed on television, so you only hear their voices. The center-right masses go to schools with armed guards, hide their kippas in the street, and emigrate to Israel. The left-wing elites advocate for more muslim immigration. The Christian majority in Europe is in exactly the same position. The elites are left-wing virtue-signallers. The masses are getting really really worried.

    @Haggis

    For the sake of argument, let me accept your claims.

    You analyze the IQ factor, and explain that at most it could account for a 10% predominance, and therefore conclude that the observed predominance must be caused by discrimination.

    This is very much like another argument I heard recently, where a particular woman analyzed the gender factor, explained that at most it could account for, say, 55-60% men as CEOs of large companies, and therefore concluded that the observed male predominance must be caused by discrimination.

    In that video, Jordan Peterson explained that you never do univariate analysis, you always do multivariate analysis. Your posts – coherent and logical as they are – do not contain a single mention of any other possible variable.

    In particular, you do not consider:
    1) Jews are culturally inclined to place a high value on education, so a disproportionate ratio of them are qualified for these jobs.
    2) Jews have fewer role-models in the, say, firefighting and law-enforcement fields.
    3) Jews disproportionately apply to hollywood or government jobs, just as a higher proportion of men try to become CEOs.

    You also do not consider alternative explanations for clustering which you observe.
    1) People like to work with friends.
    2) People like to hire people who went to their college.
    3) People like to work with people who share their interests, or politics.
    4) People like to work with people who were born in the same neighborhood.

    This is where the multivariate analysis comes in. If Juan and Kayshun and Chang from 34 Lincoln street open up a bakery together, you’ll never even notice, but if Cohen and Levy and Moishe from the same dorm in Smith College open up a law office, then it’s (((TRIBE TRIBE (((TRIBE))))).

    You say there are 50% Jews in a particular field? First, check what proportion of qualified applicants are Jewish. Then account for the other possible factors. The remainder may reasonably be attributed to in-group discrimination. Now compare it to the same calculation done for other groups, and you may be able to answer if the Jews as a group deviate from the common behavior of humanity to any measurable extent. But you don’t do any of this. You seem to believe your argument is complete before you have started it.

    Practically speaking, many of these errors are the result of viewing Jews as an undifferentiated mass, with identical interests and a single will. You have not observed, in Israel, secular Jews fleeing a neighborhood when it has reached a critical mass of religious Jews. You have not heard the orthodox Jew complaining bitterly of the supposed snobbery of the ultra-orthodox Jew, to say nothing of how the ultra-orthodox speak of the secular Jews.

    If you observe the Jewish members of western elites, you will find their behavior is far better explained by their left-wing politics than their Jewish ancestry. Consider, if you will, the stereotypical 35-year-old unmarried Jewish lesbian working in some media relations company. In walks a job applicant, male, Jewish, 25 years old, visibly religious, married with 3 children. Do you think she wants anything to do with him? To her, he’s a neanderthal. To him, she’s only Jewish in the most narrow, technical sense. She prides herself on having abandoned every aspect of Judaism, except for the right to say ‘as a Jew’ when this is expedient. This woman supports diversity quotas for every minority group except her own. What could be more detrimental to a group already firmly rooted at the top (as you describe it)? This woman goes to pro-palestinian demonstrations and makes excuses for terrorism. You think she supports the murder of her co-religionists in Israel, but is going to round corners for this guy? Of course, if he was divorced, had dreadlocks instead of a kippa, and was wearing an “I’m with her” lapel pin, things might be different… but that just proves my point.

    • Haggis says

      Thanks for the measured response Jonathan.

      While a lot of it is very agreeable to me, there are a few points that I feel need further examination. You are right to point out that collectives tend to have different virtues and aspirations, and while there are many individuals who buck the trend – we can certainly see that, for instance, Asians on the whole place a very high value on education, and African-Americans on the whole place a high value on sports and entertainment media. You are right to point out that such collective preferences can skew the make-up of participants of various professions beyond what population distribution and I.Q. would indicate. However, this ceases to be so relevant in many of the fields that Jews excel in; for instance there is no shortage of aspiring gentile politicians, no shortage gentiles seeking to make it big in the entertainment industry, and prior to recent times academic institutions in the West were composed ENTIRELY of non-Jews.

      Each of these areas requires further examination and the exact reason for Jewish dominance today will vary. Whilst not entirely down to Judaism, Academia has undergone a rigorous ‘purge’ in the last few decades as ‘The Left’ seems to have done what-ever it could to rout the ‘The Right’, and the result today is that Universities are havens for Leftists and Socialists of every stripe (except Nationalists, obviously). Whether this was specifically down to Jewish interests or not I do not know, but it certainly would make sense that Jewish academics (and as you said Jews do place a high value on education so there was no shortage of them) would become more prevalent because the majority of them (in the West) are Left-leaning, and those seeking to ‘reform Academia’ would be looking to get their Leftist Professors in to replace the Right-wingers they were trying to boot out. I am not 100% sure that is how it all went down but something to that effect has clearly happened; and what is certain today is that Jews are vastly over-represented in Academia. Whether a conspiracy or not (and I would imagine not); for the sake diversity and fairness this should now be combated, just as white representation in certain fields like the police forces has been combated. It is particularly important that opinion forming bodies (like academics), as well as authority wielding bodies (like the police) are not allowed to be dominated by a single minority due to the power they wield over the rest of society.

      Moving on. You mentioned that people like to hire/work with friends, college associates, people from the same neighbourhood, or those who share political/religious identities or personal interests. All of these things are essentially nepotism. It is unfair to those who are seeking to procure a position through merit to be denied that position and replaced with an inferior candidate whose only saving grace was that they supported the right football team, attended the right school, were born to the right parents, or belonged to the correct religious sect. This is wrong. We should oppose nepotism always, even when it is a Chinese man giving a job to his Hispanic friend. While such ‘nepotism’ must be expected of small private companies – the fact that it is seemingly taking place in Hollywood, CNN, the BBC and even the US government should be a massive cause for concern for everyone.

      Considering that there are so many people from the other races, and almost certainly a fair amount of them with comparable or higher IQs – interested in careers in politics, academia and the media; I find it hard to believe there can be anything besides nepotism that explains how a 2% population came to be so dominant in these institutions.

      With these things pointed out I feel it is important that we move forward. Whether there was a Jewish conspiracy or not, and I am inclined to think not but that there was just a lot of coincidences that led to their control (such as the above theory of Leftist professors seeking to replace Right-wing professors, and finding that there was a steady supply of Left-leaning Jewish Academics to fill their shoes…); the next course of action seems abundantly clear to me. We must bring diversity to these Jewish dominated institutions; it is only right that there are more Caucasians, blacks, Asians and Hispanics of differing ideologies, religions and political affiliations in authority-wielding and opinion-forming institutions like the government, Academia, the media, and Hollywood.

      I will again stress that it is the fact that these Jewish dominated institutions are authority-wielding and opinion-forming that makes them so important, and is likely also why so many think there is some sort of conspiracy. A minority group holding sway over these institutions will always pose a threat to the others that they might disagree with. Thankfully we know that there are many gentiles of different stripes who have IQs are are worthy of the positions, who are interested in working in the government, in universities, in Hollywood and in journalism; and as such we do not need to worry about there being a lack of candidates (which is a valid concern when trying to get higher female representation in leadership positions). Whether nepotism or conspiratorial motives are behind the historic Jewish take-over of these institutions is frankly irrelevant at this point, instead we must focus on making things right and giving everyone a voice in such important authority-wielding and opinion-forming professions.

  26. ccscientist says

    Here is my theory about how Jews got a high IQ. For 1000 years, Jews were forbidden to own land in Europe. This forced them into banking, commerce, and retail trades. These businesses depend on wits. Those who could not keep up, I postulate, dropped out of Jewish life. It was not exactly selection for IQ but that low IQ individuals quit being Jewish because it was too hard. They faded into the general population.

    • dirk says

      This was also my idea, as of long, don’t remember where I picked it up, and sounds quite logic. And about genetics: also Arabs are semitic, their languages are quite similar, but the Arabs stayed in the mediterranean and Midde East deserts, among themsleves (though, always with small minorities of Jews (Sefardic ones) and/or Christians). The Arabs were the intellectual giants in the time that they dominated trade and commerce (before European ships rounded S. Africa and Street Magellaen, and made the old trade routes obsolete) but, after that, fell back in a stupendous way, look only at the Middle East now.

  27. Jonathan Levy says

    Thank you for your measured reply, as well. I do mean that, and I hope the tone of my reply will not give you cause to doubt it.

    With respect, I believe that there is a contradiction between two of your assertions:

    1) “It is unfair to those who are seeking to procure a position through merit to be denied that position…”

    2) “for the sake diversity and fairness [Jewish overrepresentation] should now be combated”

    Now, you either have a selection criteria based on merit, or you have one based on quotas. You cannot have both. I believe that a criteria based on merit is the moral choice. I also think it is what we have now, making allowances for the inevitable failings of mankind.

    The free market has a tendency to enforce this. Jewish-dominated companies who hire Jewish incompetents merely based on their religion would quickly be driven out of business by their competitors, who had the wisdom to hire the skilled workers which the first company rejected. This is the same refutation of the argument that men get paid, say, 20% more for the same work as women, merely because they are men. Where are all the female-dominated competitors, running them out of the market because they had the sense to hire equally competent women for 10% more than they would get at their competitor’s? Of course, this argument has certain limits – for example, it is not so relevant to government work.

    “I find it hard to believe there can be anything besides nepotism that explains how a 2% population came to be so dominant in these institutions.”

    But perhaps you will also be a little more skeptical of arguments which disregard the proper method of proving it, preferring those which suffice for Cathy Newman.

    Consider also, if you will (I know I must be trying your patience), how flexible the definition of Jewishness is amongst those who are in the habit of counting left-wing Jews, in order to detect the alleged domination. If a Jew is obviously religious – well, that’s easy. If he claims it – also easy, though no proof is ever required. If he’s Jewish according to Jewish law (mother is Jewish), well, that also counts, even if he only learned of it last week. If his father’s Jewish, well, that’s also good enough, Jewish law now being cast aside as irrelevant. Sometimes a single grandparent will suffice, the laws of Nuremberg suddenly being the proper criterion. And if none of these is available, why, a sufficiently Jewish name, or nose, or wife – or grandson! – will suffice. And all of these “Jews”, each according to a different criteria, somehow always cooperate with each other to achieve a common goal, always inimical to everyone else.

    Who counts Jews on the political right? Gad Saad interviews people who would never be allowed on CNN. He’s Jewish. Breitbart was founded by Jews. Ezra Levant is of Jewish descent. Milo Yiannopoulos is a Nuremberg Jew, according to wikipedia. The scandal at Evergreen broke when a Jew spoke up against anti-white racism. Theodore Dalrymple – a man whose every word is worth reading – is probably of Jewish descent. When commentators on Takimag want to castigate him, they repeatedly (((mention))) it. Nobody who praises him ever mentions it.

    The names I’ve listed are but a handful, but the number of people who are willing to speak up against the current tide of political correctness is very limited. Yet no-one ever accuses Jews of dominating the counter-jihadi, or counter-PC movement. At least, they don’t *now*. Today, it is obvious that these “Jews” despise the beliefs and actions of the left-wing “Jews”. You can be sure, however, that if in ten years Europe descends into civil war, all these names will be paraded as proof that conflict with the muslim immigrants was, in fact, a Jewish plot, and people who are in the habit of seeing all Jews as one undifferentiated mass will patiently explain that these two groups of Jews – who today are obviously at odds with each other – were, in fact, working together.

    This may sound bitter, but I have walked in WWI cemeteries – German and American and British and French – and seen the stars of David resting side-by-side with the crosses – and then gone home to read on the internet how WWI was a Jewish plot.

    • Haggis says

      I feel like your main point of contention rests with the fact that Jews are not a single united populace, and on that I can agree with you. That however actually makes matters worse. As you have stated in a previous post, both Christian and Jewish commoners tend to fall somewhere around the centre-right position, whilst those who dub themselves as their leaders are almost without exception Left, often far Left. If we want to go even further with this and reduce Jews into two categories (right and left), then the over-representation issue becomes even worse than I was suggesting before. The Jews in Hollywood are almost without exception of the far-left variety. So too with those in politics, and even more so with those in academia. This then changes from 2% of the population holding up to 80% of the leadership positions in authority-wielding and opinion-forming professions to perhaps 1% (and if your assertion that the majority of common Jews are centre-right, then even less). This then takes the nepotism to an even more ridiculous level than initially believed – although ultimately it changes nothing in how we deal with the problem; it must be combated.

      I see you took umbrage with the fact that I am simultaneously arguing for meritocracy whilst also talking about ‘quotas’, and as this is directly relevant to what I have just stated I shall expand upon it. I do not believe that the <1-2% of Jewish individuals who make up 80% of Hollywood, 50% of the Supreme Court and (plucking a range of numbers out of my rear for this last one, but I do not think I am too far off) 30-50% of university professors; hold those positions because they have earned them. As I explained in the previous post there has been an attack on the right-wing in academia and the purge has resulted in left-wing professors being brought in, many Jewish, who were not selected due to merit but due to political alignment. In that one instance we can be certain that nepotism has taken place (though not necessarily from Jews or because they were Jewish, but due to Leftist ideology), and as such some of the Jews in those positions should not be there. It is also near impossible to believe that there are so few high IQ whites, blacks, asians, hispanics, etc. who want to hold positions in politics, the entertainment industry or journalism. Again remember that we are now talking about somewhere between less than 1% – 2% of the population holding 50-80% of the leadership positions, and their average IQ is only 110; which is impressive, but it is not so large that there are no gentiles who can surpass it, in fact we are certain that there are an awful lot of them who have higher IQs than that – and surely some of them want careers in prestigious institutions like the government or universities?! It seems to me that with the numbers as they are, it is impossible that nepotism is not at play.

      Regarding quotas; generally such things should be avoided, however in certain areas there needs to be representation. These areas just so happen to be the areas that are currently dominated by Jews. It is authority-wielding and opinion-forming positions that need to be held by a diverse range of candidates. It is particularly worrisome if a minority holds sway in such cases, especially if that minority has conflicting beliefs with other minorities (or indeed the majority). Unfortunately this seems to be the case as many of these far-left Jews are opposed to the beliefs of the Christian and agnostic whites, blacks, asians, hispanics and even right-wing jews. We have already seen homosexuality and abortion forced through despite the wishes of the common man, and we are currently witnessing a near relentless attack upon the right to bear arms. Is it right that the masses are forced to adhere to the beliefs of the few?

  28. Pingback: The Forward Compares Jordan Peterson to Hitler – The Ray Tribune

  29. Pingback: The Forward Compares Jordan Peterson to Hitler | CauseACTION

  30. dirk says

    Homosexuality forced through, and the right to bear arms: -bien etonne de se trouver ensemble-, they would say in France!

  31. Calling Jordan Peterson a Nazi and comparing him to Hitler by juxtaposing his picture next to Hitler is rich. They know nothing about Jordan Peterson then. (I know I know they understand perfectly what they are doing) It was Peterson’s revulsion of the Nazi and Soviet regimes that drove his life’s work.

    Peterson is a big boy and can take of himself, but I feel sorry for him nonetheless. He is doing nothing but trying to bring good into the world by stating truth as he knows it – obviously he is resonating with a lot of people.

    Godspeed Jordan Peterson.

  32. Northern Observer says

    The more I see the way the far left is behaving towards counter arguments the more it becomes apparent that their ideology is bankrupt. The World has no need or use for it and they know it, hence the hysteria.

  33. Mark Usted says

    “MacDonald explains Jewish overrepresentation in liberal political movements with the theory that Judaism is a “group evolutionary strategy.” In pursuit of their group evolutionary strategy, Jewish intellectuals supposedly work to undermine white-gentile culture to improve the relative position of Jews.”

    Irrespective of the argument about MacDonald/Peterson, we all understand and accept that tribes/ethnic groupings of people naturally arrange their affairs to their collective advantage insofar as possible.

    While it is understandable that people wish to suppress any notion that Jewish people (who often think of themselves as a collective ethnic group) do the same, given the events of the last century, it’s also a bit silly.

  34. Vicky says

    I had a bizarre conversation with a far left leaning jewish friend of mine wherein I praised Jewish culture and their ability to rise up in the face of mass hatred towards their group. The whole conversation was me saying I admired the Jewish people for their fortitude and him telling me I was wrong and the Jewish people are oppressed and that my statements were wrong. It was very odd

    • dirk says

      Look higher up here Vicky, at what Fionn says about his sister. She calls such a reaction “positive discrimination”, a very strange disposition indeed, has to do with the human rights manifest’s -all men are equal-, meaning, also better than average is not good, suspicious. In our township, we organize yearly a half-marathon, for athletes and afficianados. The numbers 1,2,3,4 and 5 this year were all Ethiopians and Kenyans, from the african highlands (but now sometimes even nationalized), the discussion was: yes, of course, but it is not fair, they have different muscles and fysiology, why should they run with us normal, lowland people?? But some said: no, it’s not genetical, they have trained harder, beginning in their early youth already, and are more ambitious! Positive discrimination. Is that negative maybe, after all?

  35. Carl Eric Scott says

    May the name “Ari Feldman” become one forever used to signify vile hit-job journalism. This is a smear so bad and systematic it would be perfectly fair if it sunk his career.

    Does anyone know if he has any relation to excellent constitutional historian Noah Feldman?

  36. dirk says

    I read the original of Feldman and could not find any vile accusation of anti-semitism in it. Maybe because I am rather naive, and not clever enough to smell the hidden arrows and smear. What I found disgusting, the picture, but I understand it is removed now, with an apology, explaining: -no malign intention was meant , instead, conveying the intense engagement with Hitler and Holocaust of Dr Peterson-(editor Chernikoff). Well, I might be naive, this one I refuse to swallow!

  37. markbul says

    Left leaning? That’s like saying Switzerland is Europe-leaning. No, it’s IN Europe, and Forward is a leftist rag.

    • dirk says

      For puzzlers: Markbul’s remark is meant as a reaction on Vicky (I just found out).

  38. Having read that piece o’ work, and having read Dr Peterson’s narrative on this (his blog post), I had an overriding sense it was very personal – a smidge pathological, if you will: Peterson is often and rightly noted for his Father-figure persona. I think Feldman has/had a personal issue/hurt and used his position and opportunity to attack Peterson in a deeply personal way, completely aside from the other I’ll, the pure click-bait trolling especially with that sensationalistic image. Even Peterson’s personal reaction and responses – he was hurt – suggests the personal nature of the attack for his feelings were indeed hurt. Feldman didn’t go below the belt; he went straight for the heart.

    • dirk says

      That’s quite possible, but I wonder whether the piece would have been noted (by more than a few 100 readers) without that picture of Hitler attached, which now only can be admired on Quillette and a few other sites (Youtube??).

  39. sestamibi says

    As one of those Ashkenazis at the lower end of the IQ spectrum, I can say that it always amazes (but no longer surprises) me that so many of my fellow landssmen think that the truth is whatever they believe it to be. Same thing with Donald Trump’s comment about MS-13 “animals” and the press reporting it as a reference to all immigrants.

  40. MJ says

    Normally, Quilette writers aren’t so smarmy as this person.
    And check out the “anomalous” name.. .
    And the “anti-microbial resistance”–is all this a setup or a cover?

Leave a Reply