I don't think it's so much that he is a "globalist stooge" or a supporter of "Agenda 21" (sounds like a Tom Clancy novel for fucks' sake). He is just right on some things and wrong on others. Occam's razor, guys.

I agree with Milo that it is hard to actually decipher what JP says half the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21




And yes - it is a James-Bond-king of evil for anyone who has read even the barest outline of it.

Quote: (06-24-2018 09:40 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

I don't think it's so much that he is a "globalist stooge" or a supporter of "Agenda 21"

It's now known as agenda 2030 'Sustainable Development Goals'
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21


Jordan Peterson advised the UN High-level Panel On Global Sustainability.

https://www.eurocanadian.ca/2018/05/jord...shill.html


Now look at page 93 of the PDF: The Report of the United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel On Global Sustainability


At 1'09" of this video you hear it straight from the horses mouth.

Jordan Peterson was on the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Sustainable Development. Peterson talks about this a lot. Here is a secondary source:
http://www.ideacity.ca/speaker/dr-jordan-peterson/

Here is Peterson in 2016 admitting that he was on the panel (at 1:09). He has stated the same publicly many times.
https://hooktube.com/watch?v=fz793O7sxXs

Here is the 2015 Agenda 21 report:
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/po...Report.pdf

Here is a quote from Chapter 2 of the report:

Quote:Quote:

A fifth, but perhaps most important, transformative shift for the post-2015 agenda is to bring a new sense of global partnership into national and international politics. This must provide a fresh vision and framework, based on our common humanity and the principles established at Rio. Included among those principles: universality, equity, sustainability, solidarity, human rights, the right to development and responsibilities shared in accordance with capabilities.

So, Agenda 21 is essentially a plan for a global communist system in the image of the Soviet Union. A tiny elite (the UN and affiliates) enforcing equity on a massive underclass.

I have not been able to figure this out:

- Peterson participated in developing Agenda 21 at the highest level
- Basically, Agenda 21 advocates a communist system...
- ... which Peterson says he is strongly against, specifically ideas like equity.
- The UN seems to have distanced themselves from Peterson...
- ... but he often informs the world that he was on the Agenda 21 panel.

The simplest explanation for these things is that once he was behind the curtain, he did not like what he saw and broke away from some powerful people. (People on these committees are always delegates of more powerful people. For example, John Podesta was there with Peterson.)

Who controls Peterson now? What are his intentions? I don't know the answers to these questions.

He could be controlled opposition.

He could be, indirectly, trying to wake up the west to what is really going on.

If he directly told the world there really is a scheme to implement a global Marxist system, the psychological backfire effect would cause people to move away from him.

He may have decided that playing a prophet and making compromises like 'don't anger the Jews" is the only way forward.

He is self contradictory and goes outside his expertise too often, and I think he is too optimistic about arresting the socio-political pendulum in a neutral position. Maybe he is doing some good though. Time will tell, I guess.

Edited to remove the claim that Peterson isn't listed by the UN as a contributor to the report.

Vox makes the point that guys like Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro are not stepping stones to the right. They are gatekeepers who want to preserve the left-leaning UN train. Ben Shapiro's ideology is obviously comparable to Bill Kristol - another fake conservative who does not conserve anything. He compares Ben to being a Trotskyist.



I agree with Ben Shapiro being more like Bill Kristol. He is anti-Nationalist, anti-Trump, pro-Neocon wars of any kind, still for mass migration.

Something similar, but smarter goes on with JP - his endorsement of the UN is telling. What "ideological claptrap" did he remove - something that appeared too SJW?

Then JP harks on about well-vetted non-European immigrants - let them come in by the millions. He denies any allegiance to the Western tribe anyway.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/17/magaz...ciety.html

Here Soros:

Quote:Quote:

When I asked Soros to describe himself ideologically, he laughed. “My ideology is nonideological,” he said. “I’m in the club of nonclubs.” When I suggested that “center-left” might characterize his views, he demurred; he said it wasn’t clear where he stood now because the left had moved further left, a development that did not please him. “I’m opposed to the extreme left,” he said. “It should stop trying to keep up with the extremists on the right.”

So yeah - JP is beyond ideology just like Soros. Soros also seems to oppose some of the far-left by his own words.

Vox says that the West is less destroyed by cultural marxism, but more by immigration and the destruction of the church.

I would personally say that the West will go down mainly by immigration. The church has fluctuated in terms of importance in each country. Hungary itself is not overly religious as a country, but they still retained their culture - the same for Japan.

However what I think was worse than the passing of Christianity is the destruction of the founding myths of the West - telling the story of how the West is only bad, colonialism, slavery (never telling of abolition of slavery done by the West), crusades (a few crusades motivated by over 500 Muslim campaigns in 1400 years) etc. And even that would not destroy the West, feminism and self-hatred would not destroy the West, because the far-left pendulum swings back just as the Generation Z looks to be more "traditional' than the Millennials. You cannot adhere to insanity forever that denies reality.

However when the people are gone and don't constitute a majority in the countries their ancestors built - THAT FINALLY WIPES YOU OUT. Even when the Serbs liberated themselves from Ottoman rule, they had to recreate their founding myths and ballads and yes - they also kicked out the Ottomans living among them for centuries. But their people were still there and not a minority in Serbia.

So yeah - I do think that JP is only slightly more to the right of George Soros, similar to Ben Shapiro or Bill Kristol. Shapiro is more "conservative", but one that will fail to conserve anything just as George Bush did not stop jack shit.

Remove "the ideological claptrap", but leave the UN Orwellian ideology still behind.

So he is willing to work for the UN, take the UN's money and prestige while similarly fighting against other aspects promoted by the UN:

https://en.unesco.org/women-make-the-new...anguage=en

Quote:Quote:

Gender-Sensitive Resources
Here you will find resources to assist you with your Gender Equality Checkup.

Find out where you are on the GEM scale
gemGEM stands for Gender Equality Marker - to find out where you are, you will need to take the Gender Equality Checkup. The GEM is a resource tracking mechanism based on a coding system. It is intended to measure the extent to which activities expect to contribute to the promotion of gender equality and the implementation of UNESCO’s Gender Equality Action Plan for 2014-2021 and the Sustainable Development Goals. (link is external)

The Sustainable Development Goals are even in the same guideline with the gender crap.

GEM 1: The workplan is GENDER SENSITIVE. It identifies and acknowledges the existing differences and inequalities between women and men.

GEM 2: The workplan is GENDER RESPONSIVE. It identifies and acknowledges the existing differences and inequalities between women and men AND articulates policies and initiatives which address the different needs, aspirations, capacities and contributions of women and men.

GEM 3: The workplan is GENDER TRANSFORMATIVE. It implements actions and initiatives that challenge existing discriminatory policies and/or practices and carries out changes for the betterment of quality of life for all.

So JP opposes too much gender-stuff just like George Soros opposes too much far-left. Got it! But both are in line with the big globalist agenda!

Anyone thinking that the gender agenda just happened recently out of nowhere - here a UN document from 1999 long before most of us heard about the xirs and transgenders:

Quote:Quote:

A person’s gender,
however, is a social and historical construct and is the consequence
of various kinds of conditioning. A transsexual,
for example, might arguably be said to be of the male sex
but of feminine gender. There is an important sense in which
it is impossible to change one’s sex. Gender, however, is
something much more flexible. A change of gender may quite
legitimately entai1 a change of pronoun, e.g. the feminine
gender ‘she’ instead of the masculine gender ‘he’. The term
‘gender’ continues to be appropriate in purely grammatical
contexts. A language may have words of masculine, feminine
or neuter gender, and indeed there may sometimes be a
mismatch between gender and sex (la sentinelle in French, for
example).

So yeah - I know that they finally can always claim that they never meant for transgenders to be able to change their biological sex, since gender was meant just as a social construct of the biological sex. But currently it is being used to be identical to sex and the crazies really claim that you can become a woman just by stating that. Then you can become xir-gendered.

But it gets too far for JP when they want to punish you for that - guess that part really went further left than Soros and the UN had intended.

BPS calls out Jordan Peterson for his failed radical individualism boomer ideology that is getting crushed in this era of identity groups and the ever more tribalized societies of the West.

It's a good talk with JF and Gregg Johnson about a various topics relating also to Identity Politics.

They make a good point that there is nothing inherently wrong with Identity Politics. The way tribes and nations developed is via tens of thousands or at least thousands of years of different genetics, customs and languages.

It's comparable to have a greater kinship with your own family and the larger family of your tribe. A nation is an expansion of that thinking - first you take care of your family (even if it's not meritocratic - family care is hardly ever meritocratic), then you pool the resources to your village, town, then an entire nation that shares your genetics, culture, language, history, customs, religion.

Of course there are more collectivist societies (Sweden pre immigration) and then others who are more liberal, libertarian (Anglo ones) - then you have some who are in the middle. Still - everyone is understanding that identity to be of importance.

Attempting to stop this natural "identity politics" is akin to fat acceptance activists attempting massively change evolutionary attraction patterns.





So the solution of the civic nationalist/classic liberal society pushers like Sargon is to try and DESTROY THE TRIBAL POLITICS/IDENTITY POLITICS of Jews - something that they have done for thousands of years.

And even in our societies you have it replicated again and again and again:

+ MI6 stopped hiring Chinese agents because they found them easily corrupted and then working for China or the Triads or both -
+ Indians in the US and other positions whenever coming into positions of power then hiring a ton of other Indians as if on cue
+ Jews hiring other Jews - Hollywood, media, sweet positions in finance (Wolf of Wallstreet company sales staff was almost 100% Jewish)

Quote:[url=https://twitter.com/prisonplanet/status/1014458527895695366?lang=de][/url]

That is why the opinions of the like of Paul Joseph Watson, Sargon or Jordan Peterson are as extreme as we can get at our world development level.

Quote:Quote:

Japan is represented by a set of beliefs, values and traditions (classical liberalism), not skin colour or ethnic background.

Quote:Quote:

Afghanistan is represented by a set of beliefs, values and traditions (classical liberalism), not skin colour or ethnic background.

Quote:Quote:

Israel is represented by a set of beliefs, values and traditions (classical liberalism), not skin colour or ethnic background.

Quote:Quote:

Nigeria is represented by a set of beliefs, values and traditions (classical liberalism), not skin colour or ethnic background.

Really? The people whose genome despite the constant BBC blackwashing has a 95% completely unchanged genetic stock for thousands of years - the people who have only been enriched in the last decades and most in the last 30 years, those people are only a manifestation of classical liberal values post 1960s?

Ultimately those societies will crumble and fail while the uniform ones like China, Korea, Japan will continue to thrive.


Have some classical liberalism England for you! Lap it up Sargon, Peterson and PJ Watson.

And even if someone here claims that there can be international diverse communities of like-minded men working together - yes, that is true, but then those are similar to some corporate staff, RVF members united in anti-feminism and international pussy-chasing/self-improvement, soldiers in a military unit fighting a common enemy etc.

You have to realize that those things are outliers and not the average. Even prolific Game-learning self-improving pussy-chasers are outliers. High-IQ ethical radical atheists who think that everyone else should ditch religions - they are outliers too - if an entire society ditches religion/social customs then chaos ensues. Some groups can be even united under a special religion. Still - you still get highly different results from those practices even if both are following the same religion and seemingly the same customs. You could for example create a country of only MENSA members of all races and would likely be successful, but that again is only a strange concoction of rare individuals. That's like saying that communism works because some Christian monks have lived like that in their monasteries (everyone from humble floor-sweeping brother to leading monk having a similar room, same food, same drink, same prayer - just different work. But ethical monasteries are not representative of THE ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD - that is why communism does not work! And neither won't civic nationalism on highly diverse tribes - only one shitlord leading tribe and having minorities who adapt and assimilate as much as possible. If the culture/identity of that lead-tribe is under attack/is feeling constantly guilty/wanes, then the country will shatter sooner or later or become a dictatorship ruled over by one tiny militarized elite who keep the diversity under wraps.

John Freeman was the guy from the BBC who conducted this interview in the late 50's, one of the last, if not the last, interviews Carl Jung ever gave.






He was contacted by a publisher who wanted Jung's ideas put down in a book for the general public, something Jung never had any interest in doing. He approached Jung with the idea, was rejected, but later Jung had a dream that changed his mind, so Freeman had the task of organizing the book and getting Jung and other analysts to write their chapters and get the whole thing organized.

The book was called "Man and His Symbols," and I have been recently rereading it and came across this passage in the introduction by Freeman.

It immediately reminded me of Peterson, his way of talking, and the reasons why so many people criticize him and how he expresses things. Reading this excerpt from the introduction made me think that there is a fundamental difference in the way JP and other Jungians form arguments, and the way logicians and philosophers tend to.

I am not sure whether this will change anyone's mind, and people who like Peterson will say, yeah, that makes sense, while people who don't like him will say, see, told you he was incoherent.

I am putting it here more as a way of saying there is a precedent to his thinking, and that he isn't just going off on his own tangent. Also, it seems clear that whereas most academics operate from the assumption that all you talk about is the conscious mind and its arguments, Jungians like Peterson take it as a given that there is an unconscious mind, that it can be intelligible if you let it, and that perhaps the highest meaning can be derived from trying to dredge up what is in your own subconscious, make it conscious. This is individuation, what Jungian psych is all about.

If you don't know this, and you are a trained academic, there seems to be little point of contact between the Jungian who recognizes that much of his own psyche is a mystery and that he has to discover it, and the standard approach where you pretend that you are simply a conscious being making arguments and that is all there is.

It also explains why the untrained mind might be more amenable to this way of thinking, recognizing the truth of it as an extremely human form of perception.

Quote:Quote:

The second point I wish to make is about a particular characteristic
of argumentative method that is common to all the writers of this book
perhaps to all Jungians . Those who have limited themselves to living
entirely in the world of the conscious and who reject communication
with the unconscious bind themselves by the laws of conscious, formal
life.

With the infallible (but often meaningless) logic of the algebraic
equation, they argue from assumed premises to incontestably deduced
conclusions.

Jung and his colleagues seem to me (whether they know it
or not) to reject the limitations of this method of argument. It is not
that they ignore logic, but they appear all the time to be arguing to the
unconscious as well as to the conscious. Their dialectical method is itself
symbolic and often devious. They convince not by means of the narrowly
focused spotlight of the syllogism, but by skirting, by repetition,
by presenting a recurring view of the same subject seen each time from
a slightly different angle — until suddenly the reader who has never
been aware of a single, conclusive moment of proof finds that he has
unknowingly embraced and taken into himself some wider truth.


Jung's arguments (and those of his colleagues) spiral upward over
his subject like a bird circling a tree. At first, near the ground, it sees
only a confusion of leaves and branches. Gradually, as it circles higher
and higher, the recurring aspects of the tree form a wholeness and
relate to their surroundings. Some readers may find this "spiraling"
method of argument obscure or even confusing for a few pages—but
not, I think, for long. It is characteristic of Jung's method, and very
soon the reader will find it carrying him with it on a persuasive and
profoundly absorbing journey.

In the same vein as:


Indeed - but Jewish, black, Indian, Asian, progressive identity politics - that is perfectly fine.

Essentially what those Western traitors (deliberate or just unaware) are doing is preventing the West from trying to save itself.






Though I will add that JP is likely a nice guy/good man - just a misguided one on this point.

Well he can't helping being a baby boomer.

At least we are in the right thread now.

Quote: (08-25-2018 08:15 AM)Labienus Wrote:  

Well he can't helping being a baby boomer.

This misguided hate or derision against the baby boomers goes often too far in our circles. It's not as if they consciously did all of that. They just reacted to their own set of indoctrination. The new "awakening" now is also just based on the information available of the internet. I certainly was as blind as most when I relied on newspapers and mainstream TV. I knew that something was wrong, but nothing more.

When you first time encounter those things aged 50+, then it's harder to break through the shell. Alan Watt - a baby boomer Scottish-Canadian for example got "woke" when he was a teen studying in Scottish libraries old newspapers and comparing it with official historical accounts - thus he knew that the elite were lying early on.

JP was just born in a 98% White Canada and his head filled to the very brim with various atrocities that White people did (while atrocities of other tribes are usually talked down in our school system and media). It was preposterous to him that having a different demography would result in a highly different Canada. It's still preposterous to him - also partly because he lives in the parallel world of academia at best supplemented with job training experiences.

In a way he is just cleverly used by the elite - Ben Shapiro is a Millennial but also applied along the same lines. A Jewish guy like Frame Game however would be crucified by both his tribe as well as the media.

Quote:[url=https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1033930355437387779][/url]

Yup, all via cultural changes and technology produced by the evil white patriarchy. I am convinced that there is a close correlation between the hours of household chores rendered and the median probability of a woman initiating divorce.

Quote: (06-24-2018 10:08 AM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

This is actually a thing. Look up the Dunning-Kruger effect ;-)

Can you believe this?

This all grown up iCarly girl from Nickelodeon:







Is pretending to be obsessed with Jordan Peterson to make Vox Day jealous.

Quote: (07-29-2018 05:46 AM)rotekz Wrote:  

BPS calls out Jordan Peterson for his failed radical individualism boomer ideology that is getting crushed in this era of identity groups and the ever more tribalized societies of the West.

Jordan Peterson CON (against), and PRO (for)! Let the contest begin (or continue):







Simeon claims "So yeah - JP is beyond ideology just like Soros." Yet JP collect socialist realist (ie, communist art) as a memorable warning. Soros sells out his fellow (Holocaust murdered) Jews and has no regrets!

I hardly think the two are comparable. If only because Peterson has deeply suffered and self-reflectively thought. I can't imagine that Soros done either.

I have no idea if Peterson's place in the "Jason A" video (above) is representative of Peterson's beliefs or commitments. I only know that Peterson stands for the search for the Truth; and being free to proclaim it! In principle.

Not many decades ago, this was a given for every Good and Noble man. Today, it's heroic, brave, and luminously inspiring.

Quote: (09-01-2018 05:39 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

Can you believe this?

This all grown up iCarly girl from Nickelodeon:







Is pretending to be obsessed with Jordan Peterson to make Vox Day jealous.

Damn, iCarly is looking good! Looks like she escaped childhood acting relatively unscathed.

She said in that short video she has a crush on Jordan Peterson, despite being a feminist and attending all the feminists rallies, and she can't understand why.

That's ok. We know why. Despite what the feminists say, older men being with younger women has been natural throughout most of human history. You can deny the history of gender relations, but you can't deny biology. Biology does not give a damn about feminism.

Quote: (09-01-2018 11:31 PM)Orson Wrote:  

Jordan Peterson CON (against), and PRO (for)! Let the contest begin (or continue):

Simeon claims "So yeah - JP is beyond ideology just like Soros." Yet JP collect socialist realist (ie, communist art) as a memorable warning. Soros sells out his fellow (Holocaust murdered) Jews and has no regrets!

I hardly think the two are comparable. If only because Peterson has deeply suffered and self-reflectively thought. I can't imagine that Soros done either.

I have no idea if Peterson's place in the "Jason A" video (above) is representative of Peterson's beliefs or commitments. I only know that Peterson stands for the search for the Truth; and being free to proclaim it! In principle.

Not many decades ago, this was a given for every Good and Noble man. Today, it's heroic, brave, and luminously inspiring.

Peterson doesn't stand for the search of truth. Roosh doesn't seem to like this Jordan Peterson guy, and neither do I. Most people have already made their arguments against Peterson, so I'll leave at this:

If the left is shouting "Diversity Is Our Strength", which is essentially saying that numbers is their strength (because you can't have diversity if you don't have demographics/more numbers of people), then how in the hell is Jordan Peterson our ally when he's essentially preaching to the right that our strength is by decreasing our numbers (by focusing on individualism)?

Do you see what I'm saying?

The left is saying that their strength derives from increasing their numbers (via diversity), while Peterson is telling the right that our strength derives from decreasing our numbers (via individualism).

How the hell is that supposed to be helping us?


All of Peterson's self improvement stuff is nothing that Roosh hasn't said a million times before anyway. Peterson is a quack and controlled opposition. What matters is demographics, nothing more, nothing less. To say otherwise is foolish.

But that's fine. Just put your heads down like good little boys, while the land that your forefathers helped to build collectively as a racial, ethnic, religious and cultural GROUP goes to shit.

But hey, at least our rooms will be cleaned.

Quote: (09-02-2018 01:11 AM)Contagion Wrote:  

Is pretending to be obsessed with Jordan Peterson to make Vox Day jealous.

Damn, iCarly is looking good! Looks like she escaped childhood acting relatively unscathed.

She said in that short video she has a crush on Jordan Peterson, despite being a feminist and attending all the feminists rallies, and she can't understand why.

That's ok. We know why. Despite what the feminists say, older men being with younger women has been natural throughout most of human history. You can deny the history of gender relations, but you can't deny biology. Biology does not give a damn about feminism.
[/quote]

In the old world she would have tried to bang JP, but not now.

JP has enough street-cred and is good-looking enough for women to feel this way - no surprise.

She still will wake up in a country where her children will be stark hated minorities. Her clean room is fine and bonkers - read up that Jezebel site cupcake, because the Caliphate will just shut it down.

The older man bit was never historically necessary.

Girls fathers were not absent and the 20 year old males were harder than most 30 year old men today.

Girls looking toward men twice their age is a survival instinct manifesting in an utterly broken society.

Quote: (09-02-2018 01:11 AM)Contagion Wrote:  

God! Looks like she escaped childhood acting relatively unscathed.

She said in that short video she has a crush on Jordan Peterson, despite being a feminist and attending all the feminists rallies, and she can't understand why.

That's ok. We know why. Despite what the feminists say, older men being with younger women has been natural throughout most of human history. You can deny the history of gender relations, but you can't deny biology. Biology does not give a damn about feminism.

I was surprised to learn he is 56 years old.

He looks years younger. Should write some tips on that.

I also think he can be good to emulate if you're an older man going after university girls. He has a good balance of being patriarchal, while benevolent and non-threatening.

Quote: (09-02-2018 02:41 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

The older man bit was never historically necessary.

Girls fathers were not absent and the 20 year old males were harder than most 30 year old men today.

Girls looking toward men twice their age is a survival instinct manifesting in an utterly broken society.

What we're seeing with older men is because the boomers have all the wealth and status and refuse to pass it on to younger generations, they've made themselves small time feudal lords. They own all the property too.

Though historically, marriages like 18 year old women with 30 year old men, where very common.

You know what I find hilarious?

Some of the same people mocking "clean your room" are also the most video game obsessed people on here and who think there's such a thing as a red pill video game...

When in reality video games (and porn, and everything else that goes along with video entertainment) are massively more pacifying of White Males than is anything Peterson says.

Besides which "clean your room" is actually good advice for life improvement. Every good game mentor I've seen says that the very first thing you should do is go out, get a new haircut, a clean new set of clothes, and clean your pad up because improving those basic "taking care of yourself" aspects of life creates positive momentum you can build on.


The people mocking this are in some instances (obvious exceptions where they apply) the same kind of people who mock actual game and think what you really need is "to have a killer opening stack".

One of Peterson's most vocal critics, Vox Day, believes Peterson is a wacko trying to start his own cult, and a coward too.

In order to create reasonable opposition to Peterson, Day launches high IQ logic attacks the Canadian professor's way, in order to take down his craziness.

If you want to see how high IQ people do it, and if you don't understand it, that's ok, just do your best, then take a gander at Day's recent unmasking of Peterson.

He has the genius idea to quote from a post on Reddit that makes fun of Peterson's daughter:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/09/madne...amily.html

Quote:Quote:

Cider and not sleeping for a month is so yesteryear. Peterson's daughter had a meal of soybeans and saw her brother turn into a demon.

Jordan's daughter, Mikhaila Peterson, appeared on the Joe Rogan podcast yesterday. Among other things, she revealed that she ate some soy and saw her brother turn into a demon (literally).

I don't mean that as an insult, it's a serious topic, but if they're not lying, it's becoming obvious that some sort of mental illness is running in the family.

These are the sort of people who will tell you that Peterson is an evil genius ruining everything.

If you know the story of Peterson's daughter, how she had depression and arthritis since a young age, and had to have two joint replacements while still a girl, and how she clawed her way through life and found relief from her problems by changing her diet and blogging about it.

Here is, from her blog, a list of all the nightmare stuff that is wrong with her, and how through trial and error she is getting better by changing her diet:

Mikhaila Peterson: The List

What do you call a person who thinks nothing of attacking a political enemy by making fun of his essentially disabled child? And what is his definition of cowardice?

How can you be so tone deaf to do this? Is it Peterson who is the maniac? Who is going to have a meltdown?

Day is already having one. Earlier in the Jordan Peterson thread, regarding Day, I said, sarcastically, that soon Day would forget all about ideas and start trying to prove he is better than Peterson by saying he has a hotter wife.

Well it happened!

On a recent livestream a person in the chat asked him if he was jealous of Peterson and he said, just look at our wives. Mine is much hotter.

And you don't think there is Peterson Derangement Syndrome?

He shares, with Trump, the same quality of saying obvious things, sure, but obvious things that everyone else has been too scared to say.

An emperor's new clothes situation.

And that is why so many people hate him. When he tells the truth about something, it makes the rest say to themselves:

Why did I have to lie about it all these years then?

That's where the rage comes from. The sense that if someone else speaks a truth, then you have not only been lying, but wasting your time since you could have told the truth too.

Weeping and gnashing time folks. Just ask the genius Vox Day.

Vox Day has some strange views himself - you cannot take him seriously on everything.

However from the blog of JP's daughter:

Quote:Quote:

I was diagnosed with Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis when I was 7 years old.

Most who have studied the vaccine issue came upon those kind of conditions - usually caused by the body creating anti-bodies against their own system - it varies from case to case, but such diseases at that early stage are often caused by that kind of immune-system destruction. JP should have studied more the works and books of the medical "heretics" - the intellectual dark web of vaccine dissenters has nobel price laureates (in medicine) and a huge number of doctors among them. And there are even studies (often only partly published and then waltzed over as if they don't exist) who back up their claims.

Blasting a developing child's body with all that pharma-crap would hardly resolve things. She likely healed herself by nutrition and now a rather extreme form of all-meat diet (lack of direct exposure to pesticides there also helped her along).