Peterson comes to this subject while answering the question of why Europe is clamping down on speech critical of Islam. Peterson answers that it is part of the progressive movement's efforts to restrict speech critical of all group identities including those groups which hold beliefs incompatible with progressive values such as Islam's rejection of feminism. This seeming contradiction is explained by the fact that progressive movement's goal of tearing down Western civilization takes precedence over everything else.
Peterson explains that under Islam everything has to be under its purview. That includes law and government. There's no separation between church and state so Islam is not compatible with Western civilization.
Since radical Islam and the progressive moment share the goal of tearing down Western civilization, they are natural allies. And this is in part why progressives want to restrict speech that is critical of Islam.
Progressives want to tear down Western civilization because of the historical harm they believe the West has done. And because they believe all hierarchies are based on power, they believe the hierarchical structure of Western civilization based on wealth and political power oppresses the ordinary people. This belief that society is composed of groups of people who are either oppressed or oppressors is called cultural Marxism and is derived from Karl Marx's theory that all of history can be explained as conflicts between oppressors and the oppressed.
Another reason Peterson gives for progressives' belief that Western civilization is flawed and should be torn down is related to the fact that many progressives "don't believe in hard work. And they don't believe that people get to where they're going by hard work." This is in part due to the "neo Marxist doctrine that claims that anyone who has an advantage swiped it".
Peterson defends Western civilization by pointing out that "history is a bloody nightmare. And it doesn't matter where you look". It is not just the West, but "at least the West has brought advantages along with its disadvantages. And I think that our attitude towards individuality is fundamentally correct and absolutely vital".
Peterson defends the hierarchical organization of the West by pointing out that the hierarchy is not based on power but on competence and authority granted due to competence. He says in the West, hierarchies are organized around achieving a goal and they are generally successful.
Peterson is also critical of the progressives' worship of diversity because it is inclusive of contradicting values and it assumes incorrectly that "we can all get along without a problem".
One point I would add to Peterson's discussion is the peculiar fact that progressives believe that "diversity" should embrace all groups except political conservatives and white men. This fact juxtaposed with the progressive's defense of Islam shows that "diversity" is not truly a value held by progressives, they don't really believe it. "Diversity" is just a rhetorical, political device used to achieve a political goal.
Jordan Peterson: Why is Europe clamping down on speech critical of Islam?
Transcript:
Can you hazard a guess why Europe is clamping down on speech critical of Islam when Islam is causing lots of problems with rape gangs, terrorism, and generally being a menace? Why?
Well I suppose, the first, um. Let's say if I was going to oppose that statement I would say well perhaps it's a propagandistic - what would you call it - conspiracy to blame what's happening in Europe on Islamic immigrants. I guess part of the problem is is that at least as far as I can tell the news has become sufficiently unreliable because it's so polarized that we can't really tell what's going on.
I mean I think the reason that Europe is clamping down on speech critical of Islam is partly the same reason that the entire Western world is clamping down on speech that's critical of anything that is associated with group identity. Which is pretty much any set of ideas that unites people. And it's, it's a consequence of the collective decision that we've made that egalitarianism and conflict avoidance constitute the two highest virtues and they Trump everything else including free speech.
Now why that's happened is a very very difficult thing to say. I mean um. I suspect to some degree that it's a consequence of women becoming involved in the political system which is something that we've never experienced before. And women are more agreeable by nature than men. And agreeable people are, are compassionate towards those they see as suffering. And that seems to include any minority, especially when you combine that with the kind of neo Marxist doctrine that claims that anyone who has an advantage swiped it.
And I think in the Islamic situation you get a real conflict there because it's obviously the case that many Islamic practices are not commensurate with postmodern neo-marxist feminism, let's say. But they seem to get a free pass and I guess that's because the idea that all cultures are equal Trump's the requirement for human rights for women.
And and maybe the other thing that's even darker is that there's a fair bit of revolutionary fervor in the more radical end of the left political spectrum and that radical further is devoted towards tearing down the patriarchy and of course that's basically Western civilization. And so if because Islam isn't part of Western civilization then it can be seen as an ally in that in that attempt that's what it looks like to me.
I also think you know that ignorance and and all of that contribute it isn't obvious that people who are afraid of such things as Islamophobia really understand anything about Islam. I wouldn't say I understand anything about Islam even though I've read a fair bit about it. It's very difficult to put yourself inside a different belief system.
I'm somewhat apprehensive about Islam because it looks to me like it's a totalizing system as well as a religion and it's a totalizing system because everything has to come under its purview including law and and everything that goes along with that there's no separation between church and state and so I don't see how that's commensurate with the Western mode of existence.
And I don't think people want to have that conversation because they want to say well no everyone - diverse as they are, and important as that diversity is apparently such that everyone has to be represented equally - the diversity isn't really of anything about anything fundamental, and we can all get along without a problem. And I'm afraid that that's extraordinarily naive.
And then I suppose there's also an element of something like Western guilt I guess perhaps for what has been described as our imperialist past. There's been a very long term assault on - on the what would you call moral - on the morality of the West. We're often viewed as the rapers and pillagers of the world. And that sort of goes along with the environmentalist ethos. And so I think we do have a fair bit of guilt about that whether it's warranted or not. I mean history is a bloody nightmare. And it doesn't matter where you look. And I would say at least the West has brought advantages along with its disadvantages. And I think that our attitude towards individuality is fundamentally correct and absolutely vital. And I would also say that the only countries in the world that are essentially worth living in, in any real sense, are the ones that are predicated on the Judeo-Christian tradition and manifested in Western, the Western body of laws. So but there's still plenty of guilt and there's plenty of people who, well, who are - what - contemptuous, of being as we discussed in the last question, and also angry with the political system because they're powerless. Or maybe they've been hurt by male authority figures. That happens very frequently and so they have absolutely no trust in higher, in hierarchical structures.
And there you might add to that too a certain amount of laziness because the thing about hierarchical structures is that they impose values on people and then in order to progress in that value structure you have to discipline yourself and work hard. And many of the radical leftists happen to be very low in conscientiousness and so they don't believe in hard work. And they don't believe that people get to where they're going by hard work.
And then, well, one other thing. There's a group of people I think who are basically personality disordered and those are the ones that have never had a positive relationship with anything that was masculine so whenever they see anything masculine that has motive power and that would include authority and confidence not just power they assume that that's tyrannical. And it's part of the postmodern assumption that all power higher all hierarchies are hierarchies of power. When the truth of the matter is is that hierarchies in the West are usually hierarchies of authority and competence and they're, like they're oriented towards getting a certain task done and they actually do get the task done. So but we're dubious about our own ethical - what would you say - integrity and I guess that's also why it's of particular importance for people to try to act honestly because if you don't act honestly and then you start to doubt your own integrity and then when people come after you you're going to be week and that's a really bad idea.
