Jordan Peterson is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto. He has become a darling in right-wing circles after sounding the alarm on C-16, an amendment to Canadian civil rights law that would designate transgender Canadians as a protected class. Peterson has classified the move as a “radical, postmodern, communitarian doctrine” that will eventually lead to the destruction of traditional western society.

His base — disaffected young white men — have made his self-help academia, Maps of Meaning and 12 Rules for Life national or international best sellers. The New York Times columnist David Brooks even cited Peterson as “the most influential public intellectual in the Western world.” Peterson’s published works echo past traditional self-help literature by pairing philosophical perspectives from figures such as Karl Marx and Nietzsche with self-help dogma. In this manner, an academic perspective to basic notions such as “take responsibility” or “envy is pointless” is internalized by a base that may otherwise disregard both academia as well as the broader life lessons.

But upon further review of his works, it becomes clear that Peterson’s self-help preludes act as a Trojan Horse for a reactionary political agenda — an agenda that paints all forms of progressive activism with the broad brush of authoritarianism and facism. His philosophy also gives the public rationalizations to ignore discrimination in society. This is shown in Peterson’s characterization of progressive politics, an intellectual space he brands with a bizarrely labeled “Postmodern Neo-Marxism.”

To unpack how harmful this philosophy is, we have to define what it means, but the deceptive and confusing manner in which Peterson applies these philosophies makes this difficult.

Postmodernism was a term coined in the 1979 piece The Postmodern Condition by Jean-François Lyotard. The term refers to intellectual skepticism. It is a curiosity that holds that established theories of rhetorical reasoning and widely perceived “facts of life” are not necessarily valid. Peterson has weaponized this academic theory and positions it as representative of progressive politics. According to Peterson, one engages in such a thought process when one denies what he has determined to be a fact of life. For example, one of the ways Peterson rationalizes male over-representation in government is by noting the “fact of life” that “it’s inevitable that there will be continuity in the way that animals and human beings organize their structures.”

But the “neo-Marxism” part tacked onto the end of the phrase is manipulative. This is because any and all initiatives involving identity politics would, in actuality, be opposed by traditional Marxists who perceive the only barriers to societal equality to be defined by economic structure. In other words, no Marxist wants more black or female CEO’s — as Peterson seems to imply. Instead, true Marxists would rather see the downfall of an economic system that facilitates the creation of a CEO in the first place. Marxism and identity politics are diametrically at odds, and Peterson’s use of such jargon-heavy phrasing appears to be a tongue-in-cheek method to cryptically compare progressives to a movement primarily associated with fascist dictators. This was the perspective articulated in a widely watched debate between himself and journalist Cathy Newman. In response to her question, “there’s no comparison between Mao and a trans activist?” his response noted, “why not? The philosophy that’s guiding their utterances is the same philosophy.”

But equally harmful as the characterization of all activists as Marxist, is the philosophy itself. Postmodern Neo-Marxism is best identified in tandem with Peterson’s famous lobster argument, in which he positions natural hierarchy as an explanation for socially-constructed hierarchy within humans. Take another look at Peterson’s explanation for female underrepresentation in the government: “it’s inevitable that there will be continuity in the way that animals and human beings organize their structures.” What Peterson has done through this statement is point out something that is technically true — that hierarchical systems exist in nature, but he implicitly presents this as a rationale for oppressive realities that are entirely socially constructed.

The most harmful aspect of this philosophy is that Peterson gives no reason for defining exactly what his “inevitable” facts of life are. It is just as possible to use his argument that “natural hierarchy exists in nature” to rationalize any hierarchy, no matter how unjust. To use an example Peterson himself would detest, you could be an 18th-century monarch and use this exact philosophy to squash pro-democracy protests. In this example, anyone that protests in favor of democracy could be accused of engaging in the oh-so-scary mentality of Postmodern Neo-Marxism, by denying the “fact of life” that a king is on top of the social ladder.

While more rational conservative talking heads may criticize how discrimination is dealt with within leftist circles, Peterson targets the entire concept of discrimination. When Peterson notes that Islamophobia is “a word created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons,” or that white privilege is “a Marxist lie,” his intention isn’t exactly to critique the actions of minority groups. Rather, Peterson's intention is to classify the entire concept of oppression as a falsehood. This is done while simultaneously branding those with whom he disagrees as fascists.

The concept of postmodernism, identity politics, and Marxism being unifying concepts of the left is deeply incorrect. It would only be a conclusion drawn from an individual so far to the right that they would perceive anything non-conservative in its totality as an extension of Stalinism. If I had one request for Peterson, it would be the following: stop letting non-leftists like Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin tell you what leftist philosophy is. Instead, check out some progressive philosophers like Natalie Wynn and Oliver Thorn for yourself. If you do, you’ll find such diversity of thought in leftist philosophy that might just make you question some of your broad brush characterizations and make you rethink your rationalizations for “natural” oppression.