In his recent open letter (“My Message to the Jews,” The London Standard, October 4), Dr. Jordan Peterson addresses British Jews, ostensibly offering a warning about the rising tide of antisemitism, particularly from progressive leftists. His well-meaning tone and overt stance against antisemitism should not be overlooked.
However, the crux of Peterson’s letter reveals several critical missteps. These include his tendency to generalize “the Jews,” his failure to acknowledge the toxic role his own rhetoric plays in fostering antisemitism, and his misuse of concepts such as “Cultural Marxism.”
Peterson’s critique is marred by contradictions that ultimately hinder his message, leading to a dangerously incomplete narrative that blinds him to the far-right elements thriving on his content. British Jews need take no lessons from Peterson, who might be better placed to focus on his own role in the growth of a toxic online environment rife with antisemitism.
The pitfall of generalization
One of the most glaring issues with Peterson’s open letter is his broad generalization of Jews as a collective. Addressing “the Jews” as if they form a unified, homogeneous group is not only patronizing but also smacks of intellectual laziness. To reduce the Jewish community to a singular entity, particularly as an “eternally successful minority,” disregards the diverse array of Jewish identities that span political affiliations, religious beliefs, and cultural backgrounds.
Jews, like any other group, are not a monolith. Peterson’s failure to recognize this diversity, or worse, his choice to ignore it, is symptomatic of a broader pattern of thinking that diminishes the nuanced realities of marginalized communities.
His portrayal of Jews as the archetypal successful minority feeds into the very antisemitic tropes he claims to combat. These historical stereotypes – Jews as powerful, controlling, and economically dominant – have been weaponized against Jewish communities for centuries. Antisemitism has thrived when Jews are successful and when they are not. Peterson’s reliance on such reductionist language is not rigorous but a dangerous oversight that undermines his credibility on this issue. As we shall see, it does fit into his deterministic view of society.
The hypocrisy of ignoring his own role
Peterson acknowledges that he has been the target of attacks from far-right trolls online. Yet, conspicuously absent from his open letter is any recognition of how his own rhetoric might have contributed to creating the very toxic environment in which these trolls thrive.
His discussions of “Cultural Marxism” have become a rallying cry for those in alt-right circles, many of whom perpetuate antisemitic conspiracy theories by equating Marxism with Jewish influence over culture, politics, and the economy. As noted by the UK’s Antisemitism Policy Trust in a 2021 report, Peterson’s use of this term has been particularly harmful because of his wide influence on young men, a demographic particularly susceptible to radicalization online.
Peterson’s willingness to engage with – and amplify – these ideas opens the door for antisemitism to flourish within his audience. Studies have shown that far-right online communities frequently latch onto Peterson’s pseudo-intellectual framing, legitimizing their own bigoted beliefs. A study by Dr. Matthias Becker, analyzing the comments of Peterson’s followers on a YouTube interview with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, concluded that Peterson’s content is regularly appropriated by antisemitic elements online.
Peterson’s manifesto warning of antisemitism on the Left suggests a startling lack of self-awareness, particularly given his own role in normalizing far-right ideologies.
Misappropriation of evolutionary theories
Peterson’s reliance on evolutionary psychology to explain Jewish success reveals another troubling aspect of his worldview. He attributes Jewish achievements to supposed higher average IQs and conscientiousness, framing these traits as biologically determined. While it is undeniable that Jews have made significant contributions to fields such as science, medicine, and literature, reducing these accomplishments to genetic determinism flattens complex historical and cultural factors.
The pseudoscientific veneer Peterson applies to his arguments is reminiscent of the social Darwinism that has historically been used to justify inequality and discrimination. By attributing Jewish success to inherent superiority, Peterson risks reinforcing racist and exclusionary ideologies. Far-right groups, in particular, have been known to latch on to such narratives to justify their own beliefs in the natural order of social hierarchies.
Peterson’s oft-used “lobster” analogy is a case in point. His argument that dominance is a natural and unchangeable part of human society – evident in nature through hierarchies among lobsters – attempts to naturalize inequality. Scholars like Dr. Matthew Sharpe have rightfully critiqued this, pointing out the dangerous proximity between Peterson’s evolutionary justifications and the rhetoric of neofascism.
The false dichotomy between progressivism and Jewish safety
A key focus of Peterson’s letter is his attempt to position progressive, leftist ideologies of victimhood as the primary threat to Jews. He accuses progressives of advancing narratives that inevitably lead to the persecution of Jews as a successful minority.
This analysis, however, is flawed. While antisemitism does indeed exist on the Left, it is disingenuous to suggest that progressive ideologies pose a greater danger to Jews than the far-right movements Peterson’s own rhetoric has helped normalize. While reporting of antisemitic incidents in the UK has shot through the roof, the rise reflects growth in left-, right- and Islamist-tilted Jew-hate.
Antisemitism on the far Right is a clear and present danger, as evidenced by the increasingly violent and hateful language proliferating in far-right online spaces. Instead of pointing the finger at progressives, Peterson would do well to reflect on how his own discourse has emboldened far-right extremists. His content, filled with attacks on “Cultural Marxism” and leftist movements, is often co-opted by those who seek to harm marginalized communities, including Jews.
Conclusion
Peterson’s letter to British Jews is rife with contradictions, generalizations, and ideological blind spots. While he sincerely claims to be a defender of the Jewish people, his failure to recognize the antisemitic enabling of his own content renders his message hollow. His broad-brush treatment of “the Jews” not only perpetuates a patronizing and reductive narrative but also risks reinforcing the very stereotypes he claims to fight. Worse still, by positioning progressives as the primary threat, Peterson distracts from the real and present dangers posed by far-right movements – many of which have fed off his ideas.
Peterson is no antisemite, but his specific brand of philo-semitism carries its own risks.
The British Jewish community has shown immense resilience in fighting antisemitism from both the Left and the Right. It needs no lectures from Peterson on this issue.
If he is truly serious about combating antisemitism, Peterson must begin by considering the role his rhetoric plays in fostering a hostile environment. Until he does so, his words will remain fertile ground for the very hatred he purports to oppose.
The writer, a founding partner of Goldrock Capital, is the founder of The Institute for Jewish and Zionist Research. He is a former chairman of Gesher, World Bnei Akiva, and the Coalition for Haredi Employment.