Peterson on social inequality

I've read plenty about cultural Marxism, still I don't see how Peterson is espousing a version of postmodernism. If you bother watching the clip he makes an argument against wealth redistribution. He simply says that meritocracies will drive inequality up and that's a problem that has never been solved by peaceful means.

I'm not Jewish and I'm not promoting him. I was studying how to fit and compare Pareto distributions (I'm analyzing a wealth/income dataset) and his video came up on YouTube.

Take for example Velikovsky, his fame is artificial, he's a kike promoted into fame by kikes. None of his ideas are his, he stole them from people who published their books decades earlier -- White people -- and they are basically unknown compared to (((him))).

This

Attached: as8x9gn9cqy11.png (510x410, 319K)

In every single society where meritocracy is practiced we see LESS Inequality, not more. Peterson is talking about something he knows nothing about. In fact, the societies with the most inequality are exclusively communist/socialist

In "Madness and Civilization" Foucault argues that the history of "the mad" provides an insight into what the invisible moral values of Modernist society are, and how they are harmful. Foucault believed that everything has a history, and what is morally right at one time in history is considered morally wrong at another time in history. In the book, he goes on to show that, rather than Modern society treating the mad better than previous societies, historical cities in Europe gave the mad a privileged status, according them rights not afforded to commoners. Of course this alternative status also led to mistreatment of the mad, but this mistreatment was done within the context of viewing the mad as having a special status in society. This contrasts with Modern society which viewed the mad as lesser beings to be locked up, studied, and medicated.
(Part 1/2)

In other words, he says that inequality exists because skills and talent are unequally distributed. Hence the natural outcome of a meritocracy will always be extreme inequality.

>he's a kike promoted into fame by kikes.
I'm pretty sure he is a white Christian. And as I said, I'm now Jewish and I created this thread about his video.

>None of his ideas are his, he stole them
Citing != stealing

He's not wrong, but he is a psycopath.

Foucault is just one post modernist philosopher among many others. The only thing uniting Postmodernism is a rejection of Modernism. This included: a rejection of progress, a rejection of a universal human nature, and seperate group that rejected Western domination. Its this third group that is usually associated with what the right calls "Cultural Marxism". However to say that these groups are completely seperate is false; many postmodernist thinkers crossed between these groups and others. Rejecting clear boundaries and academic spheres is another marker of Postmodernism.

Postmodernism's big problem from its own perspective is that it presented itself as an "advancement" upon Modernism. When postmodernism is applied to itself, it quickly disintegrates. This was most famously illustrated in Baudrillard's essay, "Forget Foucault, Forget Baudrillard" which Foucault never responded to, allegedly claiming it was the final word on Foucault's work.

With the above in mind, Peterson is clearly in the Postmodern camp. While he would probably reject Postmodernists in the group rejecting domination, he, like Foucault, proposes that our moral view of society is faulty and needs to be understood in a historical context. Thus his rejection of Foucault is somewhat disingenuous to someone familiar with postmodern texts, as he is clearly indebted to them even as he rejects certain aspects.

Came here to post this

>business and finance
>social inequality

kek

Implying they aren't related.

True.

Then when it becomes too unequal revolution happens and it starts over again

>meritocracy
I dont think theres really any basis to determine what is meritocratic and what is not
Its an abstract ideal that has no real placr in reality

Absolute meritocracy is a meme because things at the origin of merit is in large part inherited. The kid of a good looking couple of 125 IQ with a sane relationship you will in 99% of the case beat the hood rat shat by a 85 IQ single mother in terms of economical success even if both start at 20 with the same material possessions, that's just the power of familial education and genes.

That said it's still a better system than nepotism in most case because meritocracy implies there is some skill based selection done at some point and some competence.
The only configuration in which nepotism is very useful is when you are concerned by continuity/stability, the most stable and long lasting regimes in the world have been hereditary monarchies, on the contrary dictatorship and republics are typically very unstable.
In my opinion the fact that some positions in societies are not up to competition reduce tensions between people but it can go the other way when there are too many of them.

Attached: Japan.png (1040x691, 94K)