Peterson is apparently getting his definition of Postmodernism from a book he occasionally advertises for ("Postmodernism Explained"), by another Canadian profe

Peterson is apparently getting his definition of Postmodernism from a book he occasionally advertises for ("Postmodernism Explained"), by another Canadian professor, and which has virtually no standing: it is not peer reviewed, and is in fact self-published. Its thesis is apparently that secret Marxists propped up post-structuralism/postmodernism because they knew communism had failed (in the 1960s? Yeah. Right.) and needed their ideology to be furthered via a new channel. Or something. The author also has a hard-on for Ayn Rand, which coming from a philosophy professor I find funny. It's odd that Peterson is very specific in some parts of his discourse, but has such lackluster premises. If I wanted to convince the world that postmodernism was bad, I would point people to a more established work. It's not like criticisms of postmodernism are rare, no?