Editorial: The babbling Kermit

Neckbeards and incels unite! Privileged middle-aged white victimised males now have yet another voice to spread their nauseating world views.

Hans Lovejoy, editor

Jordan Peterson. On the surface he appears quite reasonable, despite sounding like a Muppet character.

He’s got the folksy charm of a Canadian college professor who has also spent many years as a therapist.

He should pose no threat, right?

Australia is enduring the professor’s talking tour (he’s enormously popular), so perhaps it’s worth a closer look at his message and how useful it is.

It’s refreshing to see a mainstream speaker drop into Nietzsche or Carl Jung. There’s seemingly no end to his knowledge and he will talk about anything with confidence.

That alone should raise suspicion.

He rose to fame after he criticised a Canadian law (C16) that added the words ‘gender identity or expression’ to the Canadian Human Rights Act and Criminal Code.

Peterson kicked up a big fuss, and ever since we were told Canadian free speech has been trampled upon and freedom of expression criminalised. As a result of these laws, are transgender people ruining Canada? No – transgender people pose no threat.

As recent events have shown, the Catholic Church’s insistence that its Archbishops remain celibate and then be left alone with young children is just one threat. And one of the worst. 

Anyway – as a social warrior, he appeals to those who see issues such as gender fluidity and cultural Marxism as being more important than climate change, mass ecological extinction and wealth inequality.

Dig a bit deeper; however, and there are some seriously twisted and dangerous ideas that are well hidden.

For example, his idea that you are the problem (instead of others) and that you have only yourself to blame for your life situation harks back to the idiocy of The Secret. Remember that dreadful book?

The conversation of the individual versus the collective is a worthy one to have, as is taking personal responsibility.

So thanks for that, Peterson.

Yet it’s just hard to take cues on morality from Peterson seriously because his lectures are at times an incomprehensible word salad.

But it feels right, doesn’t it? Like his assertion that morals in the human species came from Christianity (it didn’t: there is ample evidence from the Stoics and further back to Mesopotamia).

He is just a modern day Ayn Rand sprouting an updated edition of her 1964 book, The Virtue of Selfishness.

A smarter version of Deepak Chopra. With a neckbeard.

In many of the available videos of him lecturing, he regularly uses vague fluffy academic language to disguise his inability to present coherence. Case in point is a series of conversations he had with Sam Harris, who is actually a clear and consistent thinker. And unlike Peterson, Harris is actually funny, remains on topic and has a superior grasp of logic.

Peterson is dangerous because he has highly developed – and obnoxious – political skills.

He deploys basic hypnotism, overbearing self confidence and apparent sincerity. In an age of opinion trumping science, the likes of Peterson should be vigorously peer reviewed.

Support the The Echo

Keeping the community together and the community voice loud and clear is what The Echo is about. More than ever we need your help to keep this voice alive and thriving in the community.

Like all businesses we are struggling to keep food on the table of all our local and hard working journalists, artists, sales, delivery and drudges who keep the news coming out to you both in the newspaper and online. If you can spare a few dollars a week – or maybe more – we would appreciate all the support you are able to give to keep the voice of independent, local journalism alive.

10 responses to “Editorial: The babbling Kermit”

  1. Howie says:

    Just your opinion Lovejoy. You could make a habit of stating this at the end of each editorial you print , otherwise readers may think you speak for everyone. Thats the tone you come across with. And what has the neckbeard got to do with anything. I mean, honestly, you sound a bit jealous of his popularity and who made you the expert. mungos the expert , just ask him.

    • Gordon Balfour Haynes says:

      Howie: It might come as a surprise to you, but opinion is what newspaper editorials are all about; there should be no need to state the obvious – except perhaps to enlighten those ignorant of that fact.

    • Simon Haslam says:

      I think everyone understands, Howie, an editorial actually is the opinion of its author, in The Echo’s case that is normally the editor. Sometimes the editor gives the space to someone else to put forward their opinion, as for example when acting editor Aslan Shand or former editor Michael McDonald wrote the editorials for a few weeks recently. If so their name, instead of Hans Lovejoy, will appear at the end of the editorial so that readers are clear on that point. There are other columns that are opinionated articles by columnists, such as Mandy Nolan and Mungo and John Campbell, for example, that express their opinions. It’s not expected that every reader will share their opinions, and the opportunity exists for readers to have their personal opinions published in The Echo’s letters pages, whether anyone at The Echo agrees with them or not.

  2. Howie says:

    Well Gordon and Simon, I feel Lovejoys tone leans more towards a lecture than an opinion. If he is not lecturing younger readers on how to vote he is dismembering anyone who is not of his own idiology. I understand an editorial is an opinion. lovejoy speaks as though it is more than just his opinion. Still waiting to hear lovejoy explain his need to use the word neckbeard.

  3. fred says:

    To borrow a phrase from Peterson, low resolution. You’re not really saying much of substance. Uh, “incomprehensible word salad” and “vague fluffy academic language.” Maybe if you listen more closely you won’t be so inclined to criticize.

  4. RB Glennie says:

    Another Peterson hater. Haven’t you leaching bores seen your day?

  5. Ilona says:

    JP’s belief that men are inherently more violent because of biological determinism is poor science and gives men who are abusers a false excuse for continued abuse.
    Men deserve better than this.
    Read Robert Sapolskys -‘The trouble with testosterone’ for actual science.

  6. Marianne McCormack says:

    An interesting attack from Lovejoy. He begins with an odd insult to Jordan Peterson’s voice. That opening comment alone speaks volumes. Jealousy, ignorance, shallowness… If you bothered listening to what Jordan Peterson has to say, you would find yourself humbled, perhaps? Actually, I doubt it. The thing that bothers me most about your “editorial” Lovejoy, is why you would want to bully someone who is making a real difference to people’s lives. Challenging people to challenge themselves, step up and work to reach their true potential? Peterson has never once promoted any of the opinions you accuse him of. You state you can sometimes not understand his “incomprehensible word salad”. That should be enough for you to pause before further commenting on what you think or somehow assume he is saying. Buddy, you come across pretty badly.

  7. Simon says:

    You have made yourself quite clear in attacking someone’s tone of voice, and clearly missed the actual content of Jordan’s many lectures. I feel ashamed that I am replying to your article, which is your obvious, single goal. You can’t seriously believe the absolute garbage you have just dribbled? has been added to my blacklist so that I never have to read this sort of rubbish again.

  8. Noam Harper says:

    Without a word of a lie, I am a leftwing, bisexual, atheist with a degree in Sociology (the very discipline Peteron despises) which makes me the last person critics would expect to be a JP fan. However, I’ve read his book, watched his lectures, read his scientific PEER REVIEWED research and journal articles and I firmly believe that any journalist or pundit that writes off JP as a “pseudo-intellectual” or fake scientist (he is not) simply has not studied his work in detail or has an ideological slant that is clouding their objectivity on Jordan. I also have never found any of his lectures an “incomprehensible word salad” he logically blends topics that have far reaching interconnectedness that is simply beyond what many people (due to their personality types, education, ideology) can understand. I presume this author is one of them. As Bob Dylan once said “Don’t criticise what you don’t understand”

Leave a Reply

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


Echonetdaily is made possible by the support of all of our advertisers.