Jordan Peterson & Faytene / Canada, Politics, Group Rights (TWU), Trudeau, Abortion & Christians


(upbeat music) – Well this is so exciting, today with us we have Dr. Jordan Peterson, the Dr. Jordan Peterson, coming to us by zoom interview. And Dr. Jordan Peterson
you’re with us today, zooming in there from
Victoria, British Columbia, and I just wanna say
it’s just such an honor. Thank you in advance for your time, we’re really looking forward to this. – Thank you very much for the invitation. – So right out of the block, so I just wanted to ask you an open-ended question about Canada. How do you feel like we are doing as a nation academically, politically, on any other frontier? What is your perspective on
how things are going right now? – Well, there’s always
good news in Canada, because it’s a very
well structured country, and we’re fortunate and our
political systems work well, and I would say in compared terms, we’re doing extraordinarily well. What disturbs me, and has
for a number of years, is a shift in Canada at
the administrative level in corporations, in the
political realm, and in academia, and perhaps more in
academia than anywhere else, is a pronounced shift
towards an identity politics style of political discourse, which I think dominates
the faculties of education. The law schools increasingly social work, anthropology, a large
swath of the humanities, and is increasingly finding it’s way into the legislative
realm, the judicial realm, and into corporations as well. And as far as I’m concerned this is a manifestation of two things. It’s a manifestation of a
neo-Marxist view of the world, and also a post-modern view. It’s kind of an unholy
alliance of those two things, even though they don’t fit
well together conceptually. And I think there isn’t anything in that, that’s not bad. I had a student the other day, PhD student from the
UK, send me her thesis. It was quite interesting. She was looking at the
consequences of legislation designed to impose
increasingly harsh penalties for discriminating
against disabled people, and she was interested in the
consequence of those policies for the employment prospects
of disabled people, and what she found was that
with every unit increase in the punitiveness of the policies, anti-discrimination policies, there was approximately 25% decline in employability among disabled people. So this is a good example. You see, I think that these
identity politics maneuvers that are predicated on this
idea that people should be fundamentally categorized by race, and ethnicity, and sexuality, and gender, and all this multiplicity of categories that have emerged in the last few years. I think that there isn’t
anything about that that isn’t entirely toxic. And not only that, but policies
predicated on that viewpoint will be radically counter-productive with regards to the very people
that they’re trying to help, and I think there’s plenty
of evidence for that, and very little evidence to the contrary. And then to close this, I would also say that the Canadian political
landscape has shifted, because you used to be
able to reliably determine what policies were being
put forth by what party, on the basis of their party. So an NDP would put
forward leftist policies that were designed in principle to address inequality, and the liberals would occupy the center and steal from the left and the right, and try to stay negotiating that line, and then the conservatives would put forth fiscally and sometimes
socially conservative policies. You could rely on all that, but now, and I think this is a
consequence of this up-swelling of neo-Marxism and political correctness, the activist types who
are aiming to control most of what they can get their hands on, don’t really give a ___ about the traditions of the parties say, and they’ll take over whatever enterprise they can manage. And so what I see happening
in Ontario for example, is that as far as I can tell, Kathleen Wynne and her government are quite far to the
left of anything the MDP would have found reasonable,
say 15, 20 years ago. And I also see the same things happening at the federal level with Trudeau’s liberals. I don’t think they’re liberals at all. I can’t see in what manner they are. So I think it’s not good, and it would be good if Canadians woke up and noticed that things had shifted. – Powerful. Now I wanna go back just a second to the words that you used
there, identity politics, and talk about when we see the rights of two groups kind of being
pitted against one another. For example, you know the scenario with the sex ed curriculum
versus parental rights, or perhaps even the Trinity Western case, or the recent summer
jobs attestation drama, and so we have this situation where it seems like identifiable groups, their rights are being
pitted against one another. So in these types of
situations, Dr. Peterson, in your opinion whose rights win? – Well the whole idea of group rights, I think is absolutely appalling, and I think Canada stumbled into that, to some degree, for a variety of reasons. It was partly Pierre Trudeau’s attempt to grasp a civil law super-structure on top of a common law foundation. And so I think the Canadian bill of rights was a disaster from the beginning. I think it’s a very confused document, and I think it is saturated
by group rights thinking. I think a lot of that was driven by the necessity of having to
deal with Quebec’s separatism. And because that was a
group rights proposition, and in order to hold the country together, I think we made some very
profound structural errors in putting together a
human rights legislation, because we implicitly accepted
the idea of group rights. And the problem with group right is that, well there’s a couple of problems, the first problem is
groups don’t have rights, because they can’t have responsibilities. An entity that has rights has to have commensurate responsibilities, and you can’t hold groups accountable. So so much for that. And then the next problem
is, well how many groups? And the answer to that is an
infinitely divisible number, so that’s a complete catastrophe. And then the next problem is, well if there’s group rights discussions, and that would go along
with the multicultural view, what’s the overarching narrative that holds us together? And the answer that’s put forward by people like Justin
Trudeau and Kathleen Wynne is that we don’t need an
overarching narrative, but that’s absolute rubbish, because it’s an overarching
narrative of identity that allows people to
live together in peace. The overarching narrative of identity is actually the negotiated structure that enables people to
agree on what they’re doing and how they’ll move forward. And to say well we can just replace that by a casual multiculturalism
is naive in the extreme, because the world is multicultural, and it’s rife with corruption, and malevolence, and conflict. And so obviously that doesn’t work. Now that doesn’t mean
that people of good will from diverse backgrounds
can’t agree to work together, and to contribute mightily, but we have some structural problems with our conceptualization. And another problem is, is because of our human
rights legislation, is that the judiciary’s
becoming increasingly powerful as the legislative branch
seeds it’s responsibility to govern to the judiciary. And that’s also a catastrophe, especially because we’re producing an activist judiciary. So all of this is not good. It runs against the grain of
English common law, let’s say, which of course the law schools
are now attacking like mad as part of the patriarchal tyranny, and pushing hard for indigenous law, and for group based law. And to me that’s just an
absolute Pandora’s box, so we’re gonna pay for
it in all sorts of ways. – Well, a lot of what you
just articulated there could really be case studied out with the current Trinity Western situation where here you’ve got the
rights of a religious body, in this case Trinity Western University, being pitted against the
rights of the LGBTQ community, and it’s all of course playing out at the supreme court level. The verdict is still yet to come forward, but with this particular case study, what’s your take on that, and
how it’s all shaking down? – Okay so, yeah, yeah,
so there’s this idea it’s built into the
human rights legislation that no right trumps any other right, so there’s no hierarchy of rights. But of course again, that’s
naive almost beyond conception. The whole reason, if you look at the English common law tradition, there’s an idea at the bottom of it, and it is that individual citizens have every right there is. So they’re not enumerated,
they’re not articulated. The assumption is that
you’re sovereign and free, except when your free sovereignty conflicts with the expression of free sovereignty by another person, and then you have a legal dispute, and then it’s taken before
a member of the judiciary, and law is established
to regulate the dispute, and then a body of law emerges out in kind of an evolutionary way, a lovely case by case evolutionary way. So there’s no law except
where it’s necessary, and that enables a hierarchy of rights to be established on a case by case basis, very, very conservatively and carefully, across a very large span of time. And some continuity too,
because each decision has to be predicated
on the presuppositions of the decisions that preceded it. But when you introduce
something like a bill of rights, and the rights start to
compete because they conflict, well then they have to be
hierarchically arranged, and that’s what we’re seeing. And so the theory is no
right takes precedence, but the practical reality is
that when the rights conflict, which they will inevitably, then there’ll be a battle fought out, let’s say in the courts, about
which rights take precedence. Now the problem in Canada
is because our protection for such things as freedom of speech is relatively weak,
say compared to the US, in the written law, not
so much in the common law, that other rights are likely to triumph. My sense is that equality rights, which aren’t rights at all in my understanding of
the political world, equality rights for groups
are going to trump everything. That’s what it looks like to me. And that’s going to be
a complete catastrophe, because what that means, see the great ideas of the west, there’s probably two of them. One is that the individual is sovereign and valuable before the law, and that everyone’s equal before the law, and that you’re presumed
innocent because of that, and there’s a corollary to that, which is that you have the
right to private property, assuming that you are a good custodian and steward of that property
that kinda goes along with it. And that’s set in opposition to the philosophy of group rights, which presumes that your tribal identity essentially is the most
salient feature of you, and that tribal identity
needs to be protected by law. Well, you can’t have both of those, they’re not commensurate, and the problem with making
tribal identity primary is that it turns us into tribes, and the problem with that
is that tribes go to war. So it’s a very bad idea, and we’ve been mucking about with this, well, I would say since
the time Pierre Trudeau. And anything that a paranoid observer about what Trudeau had done with his human rights legislation back 30 years ago or so, anything that a paranoid
person might’ve envisioned as likely to occur is
exactly what’s occurring. That’s how it looks to me. – This would be a perfect opportunity to give commentary on
the summer jobs issue, and the whole attestation thing. What’s your take on
how that’s playing out? – Well, the current
government that we have federally and provincially
in many Provinces as well, assumes that their
ethical stance is correct, and that if anyone doesn’t share it, then the reason they don’t share it is because they’re victimizers,
oppressors, and bigots, and so they should be stopped. And so I would say it’s a
purely logical consequence of the policies that Justin
Trudeau has been pursuing. He’s as bad as you could’ve
hoped for I would say, if you would’ve been concerned about him right from the beginning. So my suspicions with Trudeau was, it seemed to me at the time
of the shift from Harper that the conservatives had probably been in power long enough, so that throwing them out for a while wasn’t such a bad idea, because that’s a lot of
what a democracy does is throw people out on a regular basis so that corruption and foolishness doesn’t get too entrenched. So it’s like we have one set
of errors governs for a while, and then we replace it with
a different set of errors before that set becomes too catastrophic. And I’m not being cynical about that. There really is necessity
to turn people over. And so maybe it was a good time for the conservatives to take a backseat, but the problem with Trudeau, as far as I was concerned was twofold. There was no evidence whatsoever that he was a knowledgeable
and confident person in his own life. He didn’t have the qualifications
to be prime minister, and I don’t think that that
was really questionable, but you might think,
well he’s smart enough, and he could learn, and
he could surround himself with competent people. And the liberals needed
a leader and all of that, and he was called upon to run. But then the second issue was I think he should’ve refused on principle, because there’s no way he would’ve won, if he wouldn’t have had the
famous last name of his father. And we’re not a monarchy, we’re
not a hereditary monarchy, we’re not a dynasty. And I think that the sons
and daughters of politicians should think long and hard before they throw their hat in the ring, because they have this
crazy advertising advantage that was handed to them through no show of
competence on their own. But you know, having said all that, he still had the right to run, and he won. So then you might think all
right, well more power to him, and let’s wish him well, but one of the first decisions he made, and this was very telling, was that he formulated a cabinet that was 50% women and 50% men, despite the fact that only about 25% of the elected (garbled audio) women, and when pressed on that he said, “Well I think, because it’s 2015”, and that’s a seriously flippant answer, because first of all the whole idea there is that you should be
assigned to a cabinet position on the basis of your genitalia, which is a very bad criteria
for assigning people to positions as important
as cabinet ministry. And so what it meant was that because he was pulling half his cabinet from a much smaller pool of applicants, one that was only half as large, not even that, a third as large, that he definitely did not pick the most qualified people
he had for his cabinet. It’s statistically impossible
for him to have done so. And instead of doing the
difficult calculations and analysis necessary to
pick a qualified cabinet, he defaulted to this neo-Marxist identity, the politics view of the world where people should be
assigned to privilege based on their group identity. And so you could see the action of an ideology at work there. And I would say all of the decisions his government have made that have been of any note since then, have indicated that that is
exactly what’s driving him. I don’t see any evidence
that he can think. I think he’s driven by an ideology. And I don’t see any evidence that the people advising
him can think either. Like their budget was
almost entirely focused on equity between men and women, and that’s just actually
not an issue in Canada. First of all the idea of
inequality between men and women is very, very, very complicated, and you can’t solve it by just looking at the average payment
made to men and women. It’s way more complicated than that. And if you do try to solve it using overly simplistic analytic methods, you produce policies that are gonna produce all sorts of
negative consequences, because the real issues
haven’t been dealt with. So for example, the difference between men and women in the workplace isn’t a difference between men and women, it’s a difference between
men and women on one side, and women with children on the other. And that’s a whole can of worms, because we don’t know how to support women in their dual attempts to
manage career and family, and we don’t know how
to monetize childcare, because the payoff for caring for children is deferred 20 years into
the future, let’s say. And we’re not having an intelligent conversation about this. We’re having a conversation that’s about the level you’d expect from a relatively
delusional 13 year old girl. – Wow. Okay, well I wanna switch
tracks here just a bit, and continue to talk about
women, but in a different facet. I wanna talk about Tanya Granic Allen, and the whole effect she had on the Ontario PC leadership election. So here you have this scenario, super strong, socially
conservative young woman putting her hat in the ring, basically around the whole
parental rights issue in the sex ed curriculum. She awakens an entire voter block of socially conservative Ontarians who probably wouldn’t have
gotten involved in that election, had she not thrown her hat in the ring, and when everything shook down political analysts
basically are all agreeing that because over 80% of Tanya’s voters put her number one, Doug number two, which meant that all of those votes shifted to Doug when she dropped off, and she essentially determined, or her supporters determined
the Doug Ford victory there. And then you have another
very similar scenario with Andrew Scheer where Pierre
Lemieux and Trost followers. When they dropped off, a lot of those votes shifted to Scheer, which made him leapfrog over Bernier in the last round of voting counts, put him in the lead for the win. And so in those two leadership elections, we see an apparent awakening of a socially conservative voter block that’s getting involved, that was the eventual king
makers in those situations. And so I’m wondering number one, if you think there’s a
legitimate awakening happening of the socially conservative voter block, any commentary you have on that, and also if you think this could potentially be a game changer, or have an affect in the
2019 federal election? – We’ll see, we’ll see. I haven’t seen any real evidence so far that the conservatives
federally or provincially, let’s say provincially in Ontario, because that’s gonna be
the next major test case, I think the conservatives
are running scared. I’ve had discussions with
lots of conservatives, and they’re afraid to be conservative, they’re afraid that they’re
gonna be targeted one by one and taken out by the social justice types. Hillary, and there’s some real reason to be concerned about that, but if you’re afraid to voice
your conservative opinion, then you might as well just go home. You’re already done. And I don’t see that the conservatives have organized themselves
around a coherent 21st century narrative,
and that’s a problem. Now if we talk about the social
conservative end of things, what seems to me to be happening in Canada is that the liberals are
shifting radically leftward, and they’re trying to steal
additional votes, lets say, and maybe they’re doing this consciously, or maybe it’s because of their
ideologically driven nature. They’re trying to steal
excess votes and support from the people that
would vote for the MDP. So maybe they’re trying to
take out the MDP on the left. Now what that indicates to
me is that the conservatives, they have an opportunity here
that’s twofold I would say, threefold, one is that they could make an internal arrangement
with the social conservatives to stem the worst abuses
of the social justice types at the legislative level, and to put the fiscal house in order. That would be a really good thing. And maybe that would satisfy
the social conservatives, because it sure beats the alternative. And then the conservatives
also have the opportunity to appeal to young people now by making a play for the
narrative of self-reliance individuality and responsibility, because there’s a real market for that out there among people who I
think are sick in their souls of being classified according
to their group identity. And so it’s the first time in my life that I’ve ever seen,
that the conservatives have something exciting
to sell to young people. And then the third thing would be that I think the conservatives
could capture the center, because the liberals have abandoned it, and if the conservatives let everyone know that forthrightly, then I think it’s possible
for Canadians to wake up and do their centrist thing properly, and toss the radical
leftist who’ve occupied the liberal party and
the MDP out on their ear. But it’ll mean that the conservatives have to organize themselves to put together a narrative
that unites them properly, and not fragment along the social and fiscal conservative lines, let’s say. And everybody’s gonna have to compromise to some degree to manage that. So I would say one piece of
advice for the conservatives is that within their own ranks they should beware of
making unnecessary enemies. So the social conservatives
are gonna have to figure out what they would be minimally happy with, and steering Canada away from
the identity politics abyss would be, that would be something, that would be manageable perhaps, and it would be a
non-trivial accomplishment. If they push too hard on
the social conservative end of things, it’s too small a percentage of people in Canada that
occupy that position to make it a valid grounds for any sort of medium to long term success
in political strategy, so we’ll see, we’ll see. The conservatives in Ontario, they have a tough job ahead of them, because they’re very new now that Doug Ford was elected, and he’s got the Ford
reputation to contend with, both on the positive
and the negative fronts, and they have a very short period of time to get their act together,
to become competent, and to run an effective campaign. And the liberals are, they’ve pulled off election victories under worse circumstances
than those that face them now, so we’ll see. – Okay, well I wanna go back to that point that you just made about
the conservative opportunity to recapture the center, and one of the most divisive
issues that we’ve seen in our nation over the last generation, of course is the issue of abortion. And I’m wondering if there’s actually a centrist position on
this topic to expand. Many Canadians might not be aware that you can actually legally abort a baby right up to nine months in Canada, legally, at taxpayer expense, because there are no legal restrictions to stop that right now. There’s no law on abortion. And whether somebody’s
really strong pro choice, or really strong pro life, is there something to be said that there’s a centrist position where both of those camps could perhaps come together and say, hey,
maybe it should be illegal to abort a child in the third trimester after 32 weeks gestation or whatever the marker point would be, because the baby is fully viable, it can exist outside it’s
mother’s body on it’s own, it is adoptable by the
many families in Canada that are wanting to adopt newborn babies, et cetera, et cetera. My babies actually were born
at that time frame of 33 weeks, and they’re super, super healthy. And so is that a centrist position to say okay, let’s protect the unborn in that third trimester, or perhaps the angle of gendercide, say it should be illegal
to abort a baby girl, just because of it’s gender,
just because it’s a baby girl, or then of course there’s the angle of women being harassed into abortion, which we know is a major issue as well. So is there an opportunity here, whether it’s for the conservative party, or maybe even another political party, to recapture the center
even on that issue, and perhaps unite those two
voter blocks for support? I’m wondering if you have
any thoughts on that. I think two things about that. I think that’s part of a
much broader conversation that we seem incapable
of having in our society about how the sexual relations between men and women should be handled. And I would say the most appropriate social conservative
strategy in that regard is to push really hard
for continued respect for the sanctity and primacy of marriage as the proper container let’s say, for intimate activity between adults. I don’t see the alternatives to that as being particularly attractive. I don’t think people
are particularly happy with serial promiscuity let’s say, and fragmented relationships,
and all of that. The alternative to marriage,
dreadful as marriage is, the alternatives seem to be much worse. So I think the social conservatives should be beating the drum hard to have the institution of marriage supported in every possible way. And also to be doing what they can to market it’s value and
utility to young people as really their best alternative, because I really do think it is. I think a strong case
can be made for that, and it’s crystal clear that
intact nuclear families are much better for children
than fragmented families. The empirical evidence for that is absolutely crystal clear, and I think the social conservatives have done a relatively poor job of what we would say
acting as a proactive force to publicize the tremendous advantages to traditional marriage. Now that’s going to solve
the abortion problem to some degree on the
production side, let’s say. And then with regards
to the legislative side, it’s a very, very tricky problem. I certainly believe that
abortion is morally wrong. I think that it’s something you do after you’ve done a bunch of other things that you shouldn’t have done, and I don’t see any way
out of that argument. You find yourself in the
position of needing an abortion when you’ve made a lot of very
serious moral errors already, and then the question is, well even if it’s wrong fundamentally, in that it’s not something you would ever recommend that someone do, which I think is a good
definition or wrong, if you can’t under any circumstances say that you would recommend
something to someone, except in sorrow, I can’t
see how you can think that it’s anything but wrong. Then there’s the issue
of whether it should be left up to individual conscience. And I would say there’s
enough fractiousness in our society around the issue so that that might be
necessary inevitably. But then what I would do practically is I would slope different legislative propositions regarding abortion, like it’s not that hard
to do a compelling poll. I don’t think the majority of Canadians would think that abortions at
nine months are a good idea. You can test people’s attitudes, to find out what policies
they would support. The fact that we’ve been without law surrounding abortion for years, because of the judicial decisions is another indication of the abdication of legislative responsibility that’s emerged in Canada as a consequence of the installation of human
rights legislation for example, because what’s happening
is we’re defaulting these decisions to the courts, because our politicians
don’t have enough courage to attack the issues head on, and that’s a very bad thing. So I think we should
test people’s attitudes and find out where the consensus is. I don’t see any other way
of approaching it really. – Why do you think we haven’t been able to bring a law forward on the issue, is it just the courage
factor as you just mentioned, or do you think there’s
something more there? – I think that no matter
what you say about abortion, you lose, so no politicians are motivated to stick their neck out and be the sacrificial lamb for the discussion, but that’s not good, it’s
the legislative branch that should be handling such things. And I would do it as a
social scientist essentially, I’d do it empirically. You can generate 10 different policies, and test them publicly,
and see what people think. The whole idea in the final analysis is that we should turn to
the opinion of the majority when we can’t decide things, when there’s complex decisions to be made, we turn to the decision of the majority for better or for worse, and let that play itself out in a hopefully self-correcting manner. So I think there are ways
that this could be dealt with that would be sensitive to the issues of bodily autonomy on one side, and protection for the
unborn on the other. And there’s issues here, like even if you’re a radical advocate for the pro abortion position, there are very, very
complicated issues at play we have to take into account, so most pro choice
advocates aren’t very happy with the sex selective
abortion of females, right? – Gendercide. – That rubs them logically the wrong way, let’s say, as well as ethically. If abortion is all right
under any circumstances, then sex selective
abortion is also all right, but it doesn’t seem to be all right, so serious conversation that
has to be had about that. And late term abortion starts to become indistinguishable from
infanticide at some point, and nobody seems to be
advocating for infanticide, so that’s a real issue. – Okay, why do you think Trudeau, he really positions himself
as a women’s rights advocate, and why do you think he’s not willing to have the gendercide conversation? – I don’t think he’s willing
to have any hard conversations. I haven’t seen any evidence of his ability to engage in difficult
conversations emerge at all. All I see is someone who’s running out a post modern neo-Marxist ideology. His positions on everything
are entirely predictable, and from what I’ve read he doesn’t really view himself as a leader, he views himself as something like a facilitator, or even as a figurehead, ’cause when I read his descriptions of his roles of prime minister it sounded to me more
like he was describing someone who would be the governor general. So the other issue on the abortion side is that well, if the unborn
fetus has no rights whatsoever, then is it okay imbibe
alcohol while you’re pregnant, or to use cocaine, or
other addictive drugs? Is there no responsibility
whatsoever if you’re a mother, to protect the fetus from the damaging consequences of your own behavior? And you can say no, the
mother has full autonomy, but that doesn’t help you deal with the child that’s born
with fetal alcohol syndrome. So we have some serious talks
to have about such things, but we’re not courageous
enough, let’s say, or maybe we’re too polarized to have the sensible, mature discussions
that we need to have. The abortion issue is a fragment of a larger discussion about
desirable sexual morality, and the role of the state in,
let’s say, supporting that. But we can’t even come out and say, and this has been true
in places like Ontario. We can’t even come out and say, well the nuclear family that consists of mother, father, and children is the smallest viable family unit. Even though the research evidence indicates that absolutely clearly. Fatherlessness is a
complete bloody catastrophe, not only for Fathers, but
for children and for mothers, because mothers without
husbands get poor fast, and their children don’t do well, but we’re under the
sway of this insistence, this idiot egalitarian insistence that all families are equal for example, which was the mantra of
the Ontario liberals, and that’s driven by the requirement that two women in a lesbian relationship have to be regarded as parents
that are just as viable as the standard nuclear
family arrangement, and that may be true
in a minority of cases, although we don’t know, but as a standard social policy, it just doesn’t seem to me
to be a tenable solution. But we’re so far away from being able to have that conversation,
that it’s a kind of miracle. – Well, I so appreciate
your talking points, and being willing to
have this conversation, because I think even just
having this conversation here, opens up opportunity
for more conversation, and really, really honor your willingness to go into this tough topic with me here. Now last question, I know our
time is just about up here, what would your admonition
to the faith community, specifically the Christian
community across Canada be at this moment in light of all that we talked about today? – Better stand up for yourself, because your religious rights are very low on the right’s
totem pole at the moment, and that’s going to get worse, a lot worse, before it gets better, so if you think that your
religious freedom is worth having, you better be ready to defend it, and you better be ready to do that in an articulated way, because you’re not a
priority, put it that way. – What would be some
practical action points that you would suggest to
stick up for ourselves? – Well it’s probably time to vote, it’s probably time to take an active role in the political world, our political institutions
are quite functional compared to most political institutions. People don’t use them,
and that’s generally because they work so well
that you can ignore them, but I don’t think we’re
at a point right now where you can avoid making
them political personal, and that’s a sign that
things are destabilized. And so if the traditional
types are concerned about preserving what they have, and also having the right to continue to engage in their faith
based activity and beliefs, then they better take a good hard look at the people who are opposing that, and decide what they’re
going to do about it. Partly what I’ve been trying to do is to point out the psychological utility in some of these more traditional beliefs, especially say the corpus
and Judaeo Christian beliefs. I think we need a revamping
of our understanding of the relationship between fundamental religious presuppositions of our society and our political and
economic institutions. I think we need to understand how they’re related more fundamentally, because I see the entire doctrine of individual sovereignty
and individual rights as a logical extension of
the Judaeo Christian notion that there’s a spark of divinity that characterizes each individual person, that we’re made in the image of God, that’s the metaphysical presupposition. I think those metaphysical presuppositions are unbelievably important and primary, and so I would say also
for the faith based types, it’s time to take a leap forward. (upbeat music) – And to all the viewers out there today, thank you so much for joining us, and I hope this conversation
has been insightful and enlightening for you. If it has been, please consider sharing these clips with your family and friends. Also consider subscribing
to our YouTube channel, so you can get instant notifications when we post other clips in the future. You can also check us
out online at Faytene.tv. (upbeat music

Author Since: Mar 11, 2019

  1. Thank you, Mr. Peterson, for taking the time to articulate what many of us have struggled to define and personalize in terms of values and beliefs within our Judeo-Christian paradigm. Thank you Faytene for having the courage to engage Mr. Peterson and utilize his wisdom and intellect to empower us to engage with the culture in a respectful manner on issues of conscience.

  2. Thank you for the Interview, you is a great interviewer, i haven't seen any other person so direct and impartial talking with Dr. Peterson, thanks for the content, hope to see more interviews.
    I'll follow you.

  3. Don't group rights often come about when individual rights get trampled? I knew (in the US) two people whose partners' wills were overturned in favour of estranged blood relatives.

    I am thankful to have heard this interview. While I could agree with much of the political assessment offered, the interview did clarify how Prof P will be an opponent (or perhaps an enemy) on several fronts, and that I find of value.

  4. He's right! (pun intended) and great interviewing! In other words – British Columbia's politics are noteworthy but criminal – because of their continuing "tribal wars" with their organized money launderers among their politicians supporters and income tax evaders among those they eventually elected to their own legislative assemblies after more than 2 decades of failing to make any conservative progress for any sustainable Time-share tourist industry in Fairmont, nor provisioning for any pipeline, nor any acceptable housing for Alberta scholarship recipients registered in University of Victoria as grad-students from Alberta, who previously enrolled there fully paying rent to private landlords and were denied tax credits for their costs, damages suffered, and aggravated over 13 years! At least one's taxes are now deemed not payable on disability pension, nor accruing any interest while not paid remedy for Charter Right breeches, because of BC's immoral Law Society's corruption. (Faulty construction, not up to following codes specified by Engineers – nor doing the stats necessary for ICD-10 diagnoses transferred to Albertans for Post-Taser Attack caused PTSD found possessed of zero toxicology civilians interrupted for 13 years and locked out from teaching, by BC's fraudulent solicitations, trespassing and repeatedly torturing, by it's solicitors in their Law Society filing counter-claims for costs from Canadian Torture survivors and changing BC's legal rules to suit only themselves – no one else in Canada or the world.)

  5. EDIT: I've gotten through this video despite the technical challenges and other challenges I've listed below. Good quality conversation on the topics. Good interviewing questions. If you're able to get him on again it would be worth it. Consider all the factors listed here.

    It looks ridiculously contrived to have a room set up as if he was there in person, but then to just have him sitting there as a talking head on a TV screen, propped up at head-height on a stool. …and then when you have Peterson's face on the screen, it's surrounded by text and ads.

    Just tell your videographers and set-designers to take the day off and have a normal online conversation with him. Zoom has built in recording features. Record it such that both your heads are side-by-side – without ads. If you need an example of this view Peterson's conversation with Steven Pinker on his channel or look at how Dave does it on the Rubin Report. Keep the ads before or after the content or, better yet, in the video description where mostly everyone else has them.

    Have a chat with your brand manager about best practices. I'm going to just listen to this video and not watch the screen because I care about what Peterson has to say.

  6. Anyone else hear the creepy whisper echo (JBP's voice) thru the second to last minute? So funny lol it sounds demonic.
    Great interview! Thank you.

  7. Was JBP a married virgin? Was he raised super religious? He seems to have a lot of prescriptive ideas about how people MUST live their lives in order to be happy/functional without actually living them himself. "There's no alternative to ,um, er, the containment of human intimacy [except marriage]"–how is this opinion informed? I really sympathized with his opinions when I first discovered JBP and still do–more so with his re-processing of Jung and Joseph Campbell; he led me to discover those men's work. However there's the typical flaws with his ultimate conclusion of conservatism to solve all the problems of life–if the nuclear family is the smallest possible family that can be viable then how is banning abortion working towards that goal? Is the thinking that it will just be a deterrent to sex? How many teen pregnancies, or brief college trysts, or one night stands result in a nuclear family?
    I think there's a bigger problem that even JBP is too limited to deal with: families are mostly formed by people who were already conservative to begin with; then they either become more conservative or at least pretend they always were. So then most people who are raised in a good family are raised by people who never experienced anything outside the traditional path. Or if they did they then reformed their ways, revised history, and end up being that teen mom that turns into a church lady and can only advise their teens to indeed stay on that traditional path. Those kinds of parents are not going to give any advice about the realities of sex and relationships. JBP himself can sort of seem like an answer to this issue–the fact that good advice is just really hard to come by, but he also falls short in these areas. We just have a social order in many cultures that results in this problem–there is no good advice for young people about sex and relationships. There's just pursed-mouth preacher-dads wagging their fingers or there's a pandora's box of disgusting internet porn. Neither extreme is a solution, nor is banning abortion, banning any easy access to contraception, banning any accurate sexual knowledge, banning anything other than this one solution to make teen horniness less disastrous.

Related Post