How I would have answered Stephen Sackur's questions to Jordan Peterson

https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/08/08/bbcs-stephen-sackur-humiliates-himself-interviewing-jordan-peterson/

STEPHEN SACKUR'S QUESTIONS

Q1.  Your book which has sold nearly 2 million has struck some sort of a chord. Why do you think that is?

HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION

Because I address the issues men face. 

Q2.  A search for meaning - is this also appealing and reaching out to people and in particular men who are angry and who feel lost and alienated?

HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION

Yes, it has certainly struck a chord, hasn't it? 

Q3.  There are many books out there which talk about a meaningful life and how to live it, and you call your Rules for Life which you could characterise as a form of self-help. There are very few of those sorts of books that go into great detail about the dangers of Marxism, the history of Mao's China and Stalin's Soviet Union. There is a real political content to your book and I wonder why you are so preoccupied with reminding individuals who are searching for meaning so repeatedly and often about the dangers of totalitarian communism?

HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION

Because our dysgenic feminist state is indeed totalitarian. 

Q4.  You see a real danger of some renewal of neo-Marxist tendency in society.

HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION

It is already everywhere in academia and in the media. 

Q5.  With your focus on what you see as the real dangers of the left and its totalitarian inclination, you have found a way of appealing to and winning the sympathies of a greater number of people who - to be crude about it - are supporters of Donald Trump, are by nature interested in populist movements we see in many parts of the world right now some of whom identify with the alt-right. I wonder how you as a psychologist and an academic feel about the nature of so many people who sympathise with you.

HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION

I think they have a legitimate grievance. That's why they voted for Trump and why Britain voted for Brexit. They should not be dismissed and mocked because they are roughly half the population and seem to be mostly men. 

Q6.  Would you recognise that there is an overlap between those who find a deep resonance between your message and many of those who have turned to Donald Trump right now? 

HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION

Certainly. 

Q7.  You can't control the way in which your words and your messages are perceived and used by others. I kind of want to know whether you are worried about it.

HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION

Are you suggesting that my message is somehow harmful? To whom and in what way?

Q8.  Would it be fair to say that the core message of your book is that we underestimate the power, relevance and importance of old stories and myths including the Christian Bible and also including a host of other stories which you say have survived the test of time and tell us truths about ourselves which many people today - and you may say many people in academia today who are into constructivism and relativism - are missing the truths of old verities. Would you agree with that?

HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION

Absolutely.

Q9.  You say that the Bible for better or worse in the foundational document of Western civilisation. Its careful respectful study would reveal things to us about ourselves, what we believe and how we should act more than what can be discovered in almost any other matter. The Bible is central, it seems. 

HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION

Of course, the Bible is after all the primary source of our Judeo-Christian heritage and the source, let's face it, of the success of the West. The Abrahamic faiths promote and maintain patriarchy. Basically, all advanced civilisations are patriarchal - and by this I mean societies that practice marriage and family values - and all declining, primitive, extinct or soon to be extinct societies are matriarchal - and by this I mean societies with mostly unmarried parents who do not make the sacrifice of marriage for the rearing of the next generation.

Q10.  This word "truth". You think the Bible contains irrefutable truth. 

HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION

The Bible does indeed contain many truths about universal human nature. I happen to know that the most successful tribe in the world - the Jews - swear by the Old Testament.   

Q11.  How can non-Christians relate to your 12 Rules for Life when they are so wedded to the culture and the traditions and the truths of the Bible?

HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION

My book is addressed primarily to the fatherless beta male victims of  feminism in the West. However, other religions and cultures may find this of interest since many non-Western countries are being forced to accept feminism as part of neoliberalism and the so-called nation-building" agenda https://www.globalresearch.ca/neocon-101-what-do-neoconservatives-believe/6483 of neoconservatism. If they accept Western feminist culture, then their men will in time suffer from the same problems as Western men.

Q12.  We know you fear totalitarianism. We also know you regard the Bible as the foundation stone of your thinking. Here's what a fellow Canadian philosopher Paul Thagard https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-thought/201802/jordan-peterson-s-flimsy-philosophy-life has said about what he sees as the weakness in your argument. He says "Peterson assumes that the only alternative to religious morality is some form of totalitarianism or despondent nihilism, but secular ethics have flourished since the 18th century and before and he talks about David Hume, Emmanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham." You don't seem to give any real importance to these sorts of secular ethics. 

HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION

Most people are not philosophers. The Bible gives ordinary people uninterested in the philosophical works of Hume, Kant and Bentham clear rules of behaviour. What's wrong with that? 

Q13.  I wonder how you conceptualise the importance of change. A lot of your work is about constancy and finding truths in the very deep past, but what about the importance of change. If one thinks about everything from the emancipation of women, equality for women - think about gay rights, think about civil rights - these are changes that we have seen in our society for the last 50 years and many people think that your philosophy actually has no real place for change and runs counter to the change.

HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION

Do many right-thinking members of society think that these changes you refer to have been changes for the better?

Q14.  If I were living in the late 19th century in the UK as a man, I might well have persuaded myself that the natural order of things is for men to have the vote and for women not to. If you were living at that time having regard for tradition and long-term eternal truths, you might well side with those who oppose the emancipation of women?

HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION

It is my view that the franchise should be narrowed to taxpayers only and all anti-discrimination legislation repealed. I also propose that the low-waged should be relieved of the burden of paying taxes and that of voting. If this means the disenfranchisement of the majority of women, so be it. 

Q15.  Why do you argue that society today has been overly and dangerously feminised?

HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION

Because it is. 

Q16.  Why is society overly feminised?

HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION

Because all political parties chase the female bloc vote and panders to their preferences by creating more laws and imposing more taxes to solve the problems created by feminism believing that this tactic enables them to win elections. What happens is that this way of chasing votes to be in office marginalises and ignores the preferences of men. This is why men are angry.  

Q17. If much of the power and authority over a long historical period has lain with men, isn't it only inevitable that some men will get a little hacked off when women are given a stab at something approaching equality?

HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION

You are right. As you say, it is inevitable. So we have a problem. It cannot be solved with more censorship and repression. It would be a grave mistake indeed to think so.  

Q18.  So you think men's resentment is more important than women's effort to attain equality?

HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION

The thing to bear in mind is whether society is better now that women have taken men's jobs and that the law now allows women to compete unfairly with men and accuse them of a historic sexual offence to silence them. The question feminists should be asking themselves is whether women have been made happier by feminism. Men's resentment should be treated as more important because of men's greater capacity for violence.

Q19.  You say science undoubtedly shows us that men and women have different traits and there is a lot of science to back you up on that, but you say because of that men are hardwired to achieve success and to be successful in a way that women are not. 

HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION

Unlike women, men cannot rely on feminine excuses to explain their failure. 

Q20.  Some of the most successful societies are judged on contentment indices or indeed material success. You point out that in Scandinavia many more women choose to be health workers and engineers. Scandinavia is full of societies - one can point to Norway - where legislative effort, for example, with a quota of 40% of women on corporate boards or a quarter of women to be in Parliament. They've specifically engaged in social engineering and it seems to be working. Norway is top of the contentment index that we see across the world.

HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION

Isn't Anders Breivik Norwegian?

Q21.  Do you approve of equality?

HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION

Egalitarianism is a polite fiction. Government policy should be based on more than a polite fiction.  

Q22.  Whether it be gay rights campaigners, civil rights campaigners or indeed women's rights campaigners. If they want to see equality deliverable in outcomes, they are damaging society, are they?

HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION

They would certainly be damaging the patriarchy and the quality of the next generation. Everything about feminism undermines marriage and the parenting ability of both parents. 

Q23.  Do you think it is helpful for you to base a lot of your science about the difference between genders on lobsters? You talk about humans and lobsters behaving the same: girls aren't attracted to boys who behave the same, girls are attracted to boys who win status contests with other boys and you describe that in the same breath as you describe how male and female lobsters behave. 

HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION

The truth is always helpful and we should always submit to it however unpalatable because the truth will free you from error and disaster.

Q24.  Is it a truism of evolutionary biology that what we learn from lobsters can be applied to humans?

HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION

If it also applies to humans and in this regard it appears that it does. 

Q25.  It just seems to me on the face of it that it is somewhat bizarre to compare lobsters to humans given that the different sizes of their brains.

HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION

Are you trying to suggested that women are not naturally attracted to men of high status the way men are attracted to beautiful women?

Q26.  Is the study of lobsters the foundation of your belief that a mother and a father are crucially important to the raising of a child?

HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION

Lobsters don't practise marriage. Marriage is however the indispensable ingredient of patriarchy, which decades of feminism have progressively undermined. I argue for the restoration of patriarchy so that the West can once again enjoy the rational and moral government that enabled its success. Everything about feminism undermines marriage and by extension the patriarchy. To undermine patriarchy is to undermine civilisation itself, not just Western civilisation, but any civilisation.