Why Milo, Faith Goldy, and Mike Cernovich hate Dr. Jordan Peterson

By Jonathon Van Maren

Becoming a global superstar comes with perks, as Dr. Jordan Peterson is discovering. He is traveling the world, speaking on the subjects nearest and dearest to him, and millions want to hear what he has to say. In the process, he’s become a best-selling author, and quite wealthy to boot—and he did this by challenging political correctness and compelled speech and opposing the Trudeau government’s decision to enshrine the tenets of transgenderism into Canada’s human rights code.

Peterson has stated that abortion is “clearly wrong,” he’s triggered an interest in Christianity in tens of thousands, he’s held up tradition as something that should be respected and studied, he’s urged men and women to a monogamous lifestyle, decried pornography, and urged people to grow strong, stable families. He has offended nearly every progressive orthodoxy there is: the LGBT activists, the feminists, and the queer studies professors would love to have his head on a stick. But all of that, it turns out, isn’t enough for a handful of fringe commentators who feel that he has not paid nearly enough attention to them.

Faith Goldy has been relentlessly criticizing Peterson on Twitter, insisting that Peterson somehow “de-platformed” her after the organizer and the members of the free speech panel decided to rescind her invitation following her decision to have a friendly chat with the Daily Stormer podcast at the alt-right rally in Charlottesville. This is ridiculous for a few reasons, the first of which is that it wasn’t Peterson’s platform. The organizer, who I happen to know and spoke to just after the panel took place, had put an enormous amount of her own money into the event, and it was decided that having someone that had so recently made headlines for associating sympathetically with white supremacists would destroy the credibility of an event that was supposed to focus on free speech. (Ezra Levant, her former boss at The Rebel, recently noted on Twitter that her comments were so egregious that he’d fire her again today.)

This, of course, is obviously true, and Goldy knows it. And again, by complaining about the utterly predictable consequences of her own actions and chosen associations, she reveals that she doesn’t really care all that much about the causes she claims to hold dear. If she did care about the cause of freedom of speech (or the tremendous amount of work and money the organizer put into creating the event), she would have been more than happy to step aside (which she initially offered to do), since she is far too smart not to realize that her presence would have eliminated the intended impact of the panel. But instead, Goldy has apparently decided to make it all about her (just as she did with her campaign for the mayoralty of Toronto.)

Milo Yiannopolous is another increasingly marginal figure who has decided that Jordan Peterson is an enemy. He penned a truly awful foreword to alt-right author Vox Day’s recent screed condemning Peterson, sarcastically titled Jordanetics: A Journey Into the Mind of Humanity’s Greatest Thinker. It is a genuinely embarrassing piece of writing, in which Yiannopolous flounders about and essentially condemns Peterson for not being a huge fan of his, not defending him when he felt it was warranted, disagreeing with him on a few points, and, interestingly, having “killed” Goldy’s career, “unpersoning” her, and making her “untouchable.” Goldy tweeted the foreword with glowing praise, which rather surprised me, because it seems to be a tacit admission that her career has, in fact, been killed, which is inconsistent with the constant declarations of her impending arrival upon an incoming nationalist storm.

Yiannopolous, too, is obviously bitter. While Peterson went from eccentric psychology professor to a global phenomenon, Yiannopolous went from alt-light darling to dead broke and increasingly whiny, angrily writing to his fans on Facebook that, “You guys have no idea what I have sacrificed for you…I don’t advertise my selflessness, because I’m not a victim. But for the love of God show some recognition of what your front-line warriors have accomplished on your behalf, you entitled f****** babies.” And this from a guy who utilized his significant social media presence to present himself as the filthy rich Kim Kardashian of the right-wing, the unkillable superstar. But the truth is that Milo, too, was a one-man show, and that when people grew bored of the show and scandals brought about by his own bad judgement weighed him down, he instead decided to get angry at Peterson, because the professor’s fame has so wildly eclipsed his own.

Michael Cernovich, a far-right figure and InfoWars conspiracy theorist, also went after Peterson on Twitter, demanding to know when he became such a coward for apparently not defending those de-platformed by Twitter. It is strange to me that people are stunned that a man on an international speaking tour, in demand by millions, writing regular columns, and also attempting to have something of a family life, cannot keep up with everything going on, and that if he does not focus on precisely the same things that they do, it must be an indication of his lack of character. It would be funny if it wasn’t so stupid. Anyone who has ever done a lot of public speaking knows that at a certain point, your schedule just gets tight and you have to pick and choose.

It is not as if I don’t think that Jordan Peterson should never be criticized. I disagree with him on a very, very long list of very important subjects. It is that the criticism leveled at him by the washed-up figures of the alt-light, who have either self-destructed or ridden the Trump Train as far as it will take them and now have no idea where to go next, is both ridiculous and hilariously self-centred. Peterson is apparently a sellout because he didn’t defend a few fringe commentators who made bad decisions. He’s also a sellout because he joined a professional speaking agency as he shot to global fame. Then he was a sellout because he’s made some ill-thought-out comments about the Supreme Court. He’s a sellout because he’s not saying what they would be saying, if they had his platform and his influence.

But most of all, he’s a sellout for getting rich and famous and leaving them all behind.

______________________________________________________

For anyone interested, my book on The Culture War, which analyzes the journey our culture has taken from the way it was to the way it is and examines the Sexual Revolution, hook-up culture, the rise of the porn plague, abortion, commodity culture, euthanasia, and the gay rights movement, is available for sale here.

FacebooktwitterFacebooktwitter

10 thoughts on “Why Milo, Faith Goldy, and Mike Cernovich hate Dr. Jordan Peterson

  1. R Joseph Rathwell says:

    Faith Goldy is hot but if you dont agree with her or patronize her she stomps her feet like a 4 year old

    Milo just has to be liked or all inner hell breaks loose

    Michael Cernovich could use a little humility. I suppose they all could.

    Mr. Peterson has changed a lot of lives in a good way. There is a movement from left to right happening slowly and methodically thanks to the Dr. and people like him, but if they didn’t praise God he has the courage to speak out for a more civilized outcome

    • Jonathon Van Maren says:

      I’m actually not really a fanboy. I think his overall impact is positive, but I’d say I disagree with him on many very significant things.

  2. hithere says:

    Instead of attacking Milo, you should thank him. If it weren’t for Milo and Steve Bannon and Breitbart, we would have President Hillary. Hillary, who supports partial-birth abortion. Meanwhile, Jordan Peterson wanted Judge Kavanaugh to step down. So be honest. Do you really care that much about abortion? I hope to hear an answer from you.

    • Jonathon Van Maren says:

      I genuinely think the idea that Milo has anything to do with Trump’s presidency is ludicrous. No reading of the facts supports that conclusion, and only an extreme fanboy could read history in that fashion.

      • David Calvani says:

        I don’t think you’ve really answered the concerns raised by ‘hithere.’

        Besides the obvious point in his message — that Peterson’s comments on Kavanaugh betray a willingness to surrender in the face of the Left’s lie machine — you’ve also neglected the point implicit in the response.

        ‘Hithere’ is clearly concerned about attitudes towards those who most loudly supported Trump’s campaign — “Milo and Steve Bannon and Breitbart.” Attitudes, for instance, by the likes of conservative pundits like Ben Shapiro (who has never failed to go on about what horrible people Bannon and Yiannopoulis are) yet were perfectly willing to let Clinton waltz into the oval office.

        ‘Hithere’ is obviously doubing the strenght of the anti-abortion commitments of those like Shapiro while simultaneously worrying that you fall into the same category.

  3. David Calvani says:

    Having noted what I take to be the obvious concerns of another commenter, I will state my own objections to this column: You have not, Jonathon, fairly dealt with the objections raised against Peterson. All you’ve done is point out defects (or what you presume to be defects) in your three chosen examples of Peterson critics.

    Before I proceed, let me say I very much like Prof. Peterson and have been delighted to see his new-found prominence. But that does not render him immune to criticism, as you yourself admit. It seems to me that it would better behoove you to defend Peterson from particular criticisms, or simply make what you consider to be proper criticism of him, than to waste space here attacking people for the apparent crime of being ”
    washed-up figures of the alt-light” — which I take to be an attack on the so-called “alt-right” whatever the hell that is. (From my experience this label was applied to people who liked making up funny and satirical Web memes and enjoyed trolling the Left. I hardly see how it applies to the three people you’ve attacked here, but then the term seems to mutate more easily than viruses.)

    Now to brass tacks:

    As to Michael Cernovich, you call him “a far-right figure and InfoWars conspiracy theorist.” You need to be careful with the ‘far-right’ label, Jonathon. This is a term of abuse conjured up by the Left to attack anyone who dares to too-stridently oppose them. And along those lines, many would consider LifeSite (where you publish regularly) to be a stellar example of “far-right.” Likewise calling the man a “conspiracy theorist” is just another term of abuse. I don’t know how such a label can be applied to him, and you haven’t enlightened any of us. (All you’ve done is make a cheap attack on InfoWars, and we don’t need the likes of you to do so. The Lefties have already gotten InfoWars kicked off YouTube — a move I and many others anti-leftists hate.)

    As to the actual charge for which you take Cernovich to task — “demanding to know when [Peterson] became such a coward for apparently not defending those de-platformed by Twitter” — I do not know when and where he made such criticism as you’ve not bothered to provide any data or links. Suffice it to say that such criticism was certainly premature if made before Peterson’s recent efforts at combating so-called “deplatforming,” and stupid if made afterwards.

    Regarding Milo Yiannopoulos, you may be right about the origin of his recent attack on Peterson, but you’ve not dealt with any of the points he made in his forward. And that you should have done regardless of how “hilariously self-centred” or embarrassingly written they may have been.

    Now Yiannopoulos raises three main points against Peterson in his forward. One, that Peterson demonstrated “a willingness to surrender in the face of the Left’s lie machine” I have already mentioned in my prior comment. A second dealt with the Faith Goldy situation, which I’ll address below. The third — and certainly “self-centred” was his point about Peterson doing an about face. Milo’s criticism here is worth quoting verbatim:

    “When he first began to speak about me, Jordan Peterson described me as ‘an amazing person.’ This was around the time he called me on the telephone, expressing sympathy for the failed assassination attempt on me in February 2017, when I was wrongly accused of supporting child rapists. He offered to do a series of on-camera interviews with me. He described me publicly, and correctly, as ‘a trickster figure,’ explaining that ‘trickster figures emerge in times of crisis. And they point out what no one wants to see. And they say things that no one will say …

    “He continued: ‘[Milo’s] brave as can be…. And he’s unstoppable on his feet. He just amazes me. I’ve never seen anyone I don’t think—and I’ve met some pretty smart people—I’ve never seen anyone who can take on an onslaught of criticism and reverse it like he can.’ Fast-forward to an on-stage interview with Bari Weiss in June 2018 at the Aspen Ideas Festival. Weiss is talking about about a professor who paired me with Hitler and gave us as examples of Very Bad Things. She alleges that I, the interracially married man, am indeed a racist.

    “To which Peterson replies: ‘Well, possibly, yeah … I haven’t followed Milo that carefully.'”

    If Yiannopoulos is correctly reporting Peterson’s response then he does have some explaining to do, for it makes Yiannopoulos’ stated concern that Peterson is a “chameleon who looks and sounds the same all the time, but who adjusts and even completely subverts his own ideology” seem all too true.

    As for Faith Goldy, I’ve left her for last as you’re likely to most strongly object to my criticism in this case. Your entire issue with her is that she dared to have “a friendly chat with the Daily Stormer podcast.” Thus you demonstrate yourself as incapable of grasping the criticism being made. Said criticism leveled at Peterson is that he and the other panelists did not stand up for freedom of speech at a FORUM ABOUT FREE SPEECH! Peterson himself decided he needed to address this concern. (So even he doesn’t accept the ‘it wasn’t his event’ excuse.) He did so, of course, because If people want their commitment to free speech to be seen as honest and sincere, they need to stand up for freedom of speech even when they don’t like the speech. And yet you condemn Goldy for complaining (and laud the unnamed organizer) not just because of her words, but simply because of with whom Goldy spoke them!

    I don’t buy Yiannopoulos’ claim that Goldy’s career was in any way “destoyed” by Peterson, but your defense of the way she was treated is not cool, Jonathon. Freedom of speech applies even to those who “have “[associated] sympathetically with white supremacists.” Your flight from the principle under attack — freedom of speech — fits in well with attacks on other commentators like “Sargon of Akaad” and “Styxhexxenhammer666” — to name just two web pundits who have been attacked (and in one case kicked off a platform) for talking with white nationalists just to criticize them.

    • Jonathon Van Maren says:

      Read my longer columns about Faith, Milo, et al. They are the context for this shorter column of criticism. My “entire issue” is far more than just the Daily Stormer, although that would be disqualifying on its own. As for InfoWars etc, we’re really going to have to disagree strongly on a lot of things here.

  4. palintropos says:

    “associating sympathetically with white supremacists would destroy the credibility of an event that was supposed to focus on free speech”

    When have “white supremacists been against free speech?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *