[Blaster]

(05-10-2017 02:28 AM)3extra Wrote:  

Jordan is back on JRE.

Totally worth listening to the whole thing, even if you've already heard the first one. 3 hours. At the end, Joe notes that this was his favorite podcast of all time.

[Conquerer7]

(05-10-2017 02:28 AM)3extra Wrote:  

Jordan is back on JRE.

Could listen to this at least 5 times. The level of knowledge and critical thinking is astounding.

[Dirkus]

I haven't seen the original interview - and I'm sure it's worth a watch but interesting this is the first I've heard of him acknowledging MGTOW.

[debeguiled]

(05-12-2017 08:57 AM)Dirkus Wrote:  

I haven't seen the original interview - and I'm sure it's worth a watch but interesting this is the first I've heard of him acknowledging MGTOW.

It is good to see a public intellectual who can admit he regrets something, although that is not the same thing as admitting you were wrong, which he doesn't really do in this video. Also, there is a twinkle in his eye whenever he says the word weasel. I don't think he is sorry either.

He just regrets saying it.

[xmlenigma]

(05-12-2017 05:06 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 08:57 AM)Dirkus Wrote:  

I haven't seen the original interview - and I'm sure it's worth a watch but interesting this is the first I've heard of him acknowledging MGTOW.

It is good to see a public intellectual who can admit he regrets something, although that is not the same thing as admitting you were wrong, which he doesn't really do in this video. Also, there is a twinkle in his eye whenever he says the word weasel. I don't think he is sorry either.

He just regrets saying it.

I think to a large extent he is talking about CLUBBING & GENERALIZING the archetype.

To a large extent what he's saying is first have some SELF REFLECTION & INTROSPECTION.

Did you play a part in making this happen?

Aren't there plenty of Non Compliant women/ girls these days who get TAMED or atleast SEMI Dominated by our Players/ PUAs/ Alpha males?

So, maybe to a large extent while Females at Large, were being transformed from their Nicer Archetypes to Nastier archetypes.. Blame it on feminists/ism, secret state, government.. But we also participated in this BS to some extent and hence bear the outcome.

I remember one of the first girls I used to have late night outs with and she'd have these weird tantrums, making me stop the car and saying she wants to get out and she wont let me drop her/ go home.

I was a NICE guy back then and did not understand this behavior; because I had not seen any of my sisters/ cousins behave this way; well exception to a few here and there. But, nothing this far.

Now, I know better. Then again, the rhetoric is fueled in media and there's plenty of WHITE KNIGHTS supporting this. So, aren't men also PART of the PROBLEM.

As INDIVIDUALS and COLLECTIVES, we are accountable to some extent in letting this BS happen over and over, every small instance.

So, walking away is some what Weasely.. But then again, I am partly feeling MGTOW-y and partly play/ pua/ game them but be careful not get involved/ attached.. with some SLIM part of me wanting to find a GROUNDED lady if at all there exists.. (there are some.. but rare.. rare.. self aware and cognizant..)

At the end of the day, there is not perfect answer - Do what you can and drop the rest..

His response video he does say that there is due reason/ causation behind it.

One does not have to say SORRY or APOLOGIZE like Mother Theresa with EXPLICIT words.. He's saying yes, there was oversight on his part and he acknowledges the truth..

Are MGTOWs now FRAGILE FEMINISTS who want JP to tender a WEASELEY apology? C'mon!

Plus, no one is perfect.. Words pop out of our mouth and we got to allow for some amount of imperfection in articulation.

[xmlenigma]

(05-10-2017 08:27 AM)Blaster Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 04:36 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 03:22 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

He may be a classical liberal (in the European sense). And if he is, thank god. We need more of them in the limelight.

Anyway, besides his obvious intelligence and passion, he possess something that I did not think would be effective in the modern colosseum of culture, and that is his earnestness and gentleness.

In the other thread, Ghost Tiger and I were debating on whether or not he should crank up the rhetoric. But it seems like on the Joe Rogan podcast he just laid it all out without the usual vitriol and need to score cheap points on one's enemies. He came off as a real honest man forced into this realization.

The effect I saw on my social media from normies who rarely care about real politics was massive. People started referencing him and comparing him to the various SJWs they co-exist with (whether it was friends, media figures, professors, or co-workers). Something about Peterson's logico-moral mysticism connected with them on a major level.

He is bludgeoning the left with dialectics.

You and me brother, I was having the same debate with him. Let Jordan be Jordan, he is doing fine. And that's that.

His technique is a form of rhetoric that is worth understanding. Everything about his presentation conveys mastery, honesty, self-control, and genuine passion. That kind of skill has to come from years of practice and commitment to solid fundamental principles. Properly employed, it will make your opponents look like raving lunatics.

Quote:

Peterson makes Molyneux look like the relative lightweight he is.

Not to bash Molyneux, I still enjoy his work and he fills an important role, but I did find myself thinking the same thing.

The best thing about him is that he is neither left biased or right biased but towards.. TRUTH, INTROSPECTION, SELF AWARENESS, ROOT CAUSATION, MOTIVATIONS.. BROAD & DEEP THINKING and ANALYSIS.. CALLING THINGS AS THEY ARE.. not accepting BS at face value.. Going the Core..
Not everything he says is perfect.. but his APPROACH and INTENTION & DIRECTION are commendable..
For a guy who does not meditate.. (doesn't seem mentioned anywhere) he's very very COGNITIVE.

If he starts to meditate.. damn.. it'll be amazing to see even subtler layers that he will bring into light.

[Blaster]

I'd be really interesting to see what JBP would think about Roosh. He argues that the flaw of conservatism is being too resistant to change. Environments change and expose flaws in the old traditions. The flaw of liberalism is failure to respect utility of traditions and to throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.

So what you need to do is leave the security of traditions and open up to new ideas and new experiences. You have to suffer and learn, and then you have to use those experiences to adapt the old traditions to suit the new environment. He frequently speaks metaphorically about this as "revivifying your father." https://i.redd.it/4u9hd1sishly.png

That is pretty much exactly what Neomasculinity aspires to be. I'd say Roosh has even gone into the belly of the beast and emerged intact (the whole meetups/Battle of Montreal/press conference).

[Dirkus]

I actually propose a different take on this. That we as men don't actually *need* Neomasculinity (nor for it to be mobilized for that matter) in the same way women *need* feminism AND for it to be mobilized.

Source: http://masculineprinciple.blogspot.com.a...argue.html

Quote:

"Truth" as men know it does not exist in the same way for women. Women are "herd creatures" and thus women find "truth" or right and wrong through the consensus of the herd. It is what the herd believes is correct that women believe is "truth." Thus you see women are much more attuned to eternally changing notions such as fashion, or how they use social proofing - the consensus of whom the herd finds a sexually desirable man - to decide for their individual selves which man they find sexy. Men simply "know" what they find sexy in a mate, but women find men sexy because of other women's sexual preferences.

When women argue, they are not trying to find the objective truth but rather are after manipulating the other(s) into feeling unified with them towards their opinion. If the herd believes 1+1=3, then it is correct - because the herd believes it is so. If tomorrow, the herd believes 1+1=1, then that will be correct - because the herd believes it is so. It is men who insist upon the objective truth - based on principle and universality - and continue to argue 1+1=2, no matter how much you cows moo at me. Women are not after finding the correct answer, but rather they are after manipulating others into feeling they are right and their opponent is wrong. In other words, they are socially manipulating their opponent when they argue, rather than seeking the actual, objective truth.

In other words, women *need* feminism - they *need* the 'herd' in order to be 'heard' - and really could care less for objective truth, other than when it suits their agenda.

Where as I believe men don't ever fall into a herd. As in - that's how armies are run - you've got an army. Then within the army is a division. Within the division is a battalion - within that is a squadron etc. until you've got like 20 guys who will look after each other - love each other like *brothers*. So men stand alone ultimately.

Women? Pfft. You put 20 women in a room together they fucking HATE each other - they fight, they bitch - just watch The Bachelor. So the irony is, women fundamentally CAN'T identify with women as people - but rather they identify with "women" as a concept ie. "together we stand". *fist pump*

So I think the point I'm making here is Neomasculinity can get 'caught' in this idea of "yes, we need to unite! Down with feminism! Rah rah!" Where as mate - that's feminist talk. THATS the herd mentality.

And Roosh found this out first hand when he tried to mobilize it and shy on received death threats - and even spoke about it in his latest post 'The Influence Curve'.

So I think yes, Neomasculinity IS powerful, is influential in it's current form - and most powerful when men do what men have always done. Sit around a table, drink - and discuss the world. That's where change is happening. This forum is serving as a macrocosm *for* that change - knowing that there's men all around the globe thinking about what's happening, and what they themselves can do about it. And where possible, meeting each other - as I can only vouch for the guys I've so far met on these forums have been quality men. That's change by osmosis, and IMO is what's likely going to happen anyway. Any 'Neomasculinity mobilization endeavours' may of course happen naturally too - none of us are controlling what anyone may feel ultimately inclined to do.

As JP would say, it starts with yourself first - but your inner circle is where it really builds power.

[Nascimento]

(05-11-2017 05:37 PM)Conquerer7 Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 02:28 AM)3extra Wrote:  

Jordan is back on JRE.

Could listen to this at least 5 times. The level of knowledge and critical thinking is astounding.

Honestly an understatement. Man's on another level.

[debeguiled]

[Kabal]

(03-21-2017 07:42 PM)amity Wrote:  

Another fascinating clip from Jordan.
This one is about the gini coefficient.
It explains so much about human behaviour.
But in particular, it sheds some light on why we see such high crime rates for third world migrants in Europe, US and other first world regions.

I only watched the first 3 minutes or so, but Peterson's "relative inequality" hypothesis is inadequate as an explanation between US vs. Canada differences in violent crime when demographic characteristics are the elephant in the room.

For example, the U.S. has a lot more blacks and Latinos.

The intentional homicide rate listed on Wikipedia is 1.5 for Canada, and 3.9 for the U.S. Quick back-of-the-envelope calculations in Excel using FBI's 2013 numbers for homicide offenders brings the U.S. number already down to 2.1 for the rate of non-blacks, as U.S. blacks are disproportionate offenders.

Via Wikipedia, the U.S. population is about 13% black and Canada 2%, and the U.S. 16% Latino "of any race" and Canada 0.6% Latino. Accounting for Latinos would likely bring the 2.1 rate to a level statistically indifferent to the nominal Canadian rate.

Overall, I would say Peterson is a great influence. At least he alerts his students and the public that, unlike liberal wet dreams, crime is not primarily the product of poverty.

Let's not be sloppy, though.

[Blaster]

Kabal Wrote:

I only watched the first 3 minutes or so,

Probably the most interesting part of the above video that you missed would be the part where he posits a definition of civilized behavior: You are allowed to advance your position within the social structure, so long as you don't disrupt it negatively.

Quote:

but Peterson's "relative inequality" hypothesis is inadequate as an explanation between US vs. Canada differences in violent crime when demographic characteristics are the elephant in the room.

In a podcast with Martin Daly, whose research is likely the foundation for those claims he makes in the video, he brings up the idea that men can have a psychological predilection to violence, and that the conditions that produce a steep male status hierarchy (relative inequality) affects those men first. He doesn't talk about race, but it's most definitely not a blank slate / social constructionist position. He also asks about Daly about female hypergamy at one point.

[xmlenigma]

A spiritual master once shared this with me..

In matters of principle, stand like a rock.
In matters of style, go with the flow.

I am marking what I truly believe.. the evolution and balance of past wisdom and evolution in application with time..

(05-15-2017 12:07 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

I'd be really interesting to see what JBP would think about Roosh. He argues that the flaw of conservatism is being too resistant to change. Environments change and expose flaws in the old traditions. The flaw of liberalism is failure to respect utility of traditions and to throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.

So what you need to do is leave the security of traditions and open up to new ideas and new experiences. You have to suffer and learn, and then you have to use those experiences to adapt the old traditions to suit the new environment. He frequently speaks metaphorically about this as "revivifying your father." https://i.redd.it/4u9hd1sishly.png

That is pretty much exactly what Neomasculinity aspires to be. I'd say Roosh has even gone into the belly of the beast and emerged intact (the whole meetups/Battle of Montreal/press conference).

[Blaster]

Demonstrates his sense of humor in this one, and a rather remarkable ability to present a coherent, 90 minute presentation with a single theme while covering a wide range of topics and ideas.

The video is titled "A Left-Wing Case for Free Speech," but it's more like a centrist argument for free speech embedded in a left-wing argument for free speech, with a lot of digs at modern leftists in the meantime.

[Tytalus]

I've started listening to him on YouTube. Quite interesting guy and makes great lectures.

[Dirkus]

[scotian]

(05-21-2017 07:30 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 07:42 PM)amity Wrote:  

Another fascinating clip from Jordan.
This one is about the gini coefficient.
It explains so much about human behaviour.
But in particular, it sheds some light on why we see such high crime rates for third world migrants in Europe, US and other first world regions.

I only watched the first 3 minutes or so, but Peterson's "relative inequality" hypothesis is inadequate as an explanation between US vs. Canada differences in violent crime when demographic characteristics are the elephant in the room.

For example, the U.S. has a lot more blacks and Latinos.

The intentional homicide rate listed on Wikipedia is 1.5 for Canada, and 3.9 for the U.S. Quick back-of-the-envelope calculations in Excel using FBI's 2013 numbers for homicide offenders brings the U.S. number already down to 2.1 for the rate of non-blacks, as U.S. blacks are disproportionate offenders.

Via Wikipedia, the U.S. population is about 13% black and Canada 2%, and the U.S. 16% Latino "of any race" and Canada 0.6% Latino. Accounting for Latinos would likely bring the 2.1 rate to a level statistically indifferent to the nominal Canadian rate.

Overall, I would say Peterson is a great influence. At least he alerts his students and the public that, unlike liberal wet dreams, crime is not primarily the product of poverty.

Let's not be sloppy, though.

Canada also has our own elephant in the room which is the high rate of crime among our aboriginal population, especially in the western provinces where their numbers are larger. Its something that most Canadians are aware of, especially in the north and the west but of course its not politically correct to talk about it so you don't see the issue being raised too much in the national media. In provinces such as Manitoba and Saskatchewan where the aboriginal population is roughly that of the US's black population, the prisons are full of aboriginal offenders, from website of Corrections Canada:

Quote:

In all of the provinces/territories, the proportion of Aboriginal inmates was dramatically higher than the proportion of Aboriginal persons in the population. For example, in Saskatchewan the proportion of Aboriginal persons incarcerated was over nine times their proportion in the provincial population (72% of the inmate population compared to 8%). In Manitoba, 61% of the inmates were Aboriginal compared to 9% in the provincial population.... A significant larger number of Aboriginal than non-Aboriginal federal inmates were convicted of serious assault (10% versus 3%) and sexual assault (20% versus 12%).

So our jails are full of Indians although they get special treatment because of their special minority status, some literally get away with murder because judges consider a Gladue report while giving sentencing.

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

Quote:

In Criminal sentencing in Canada, a court is required to take into account all reasonable alternatives to incarcerations, with particular attention to Aboriginal offenders (s. 718.2(e)). This is not an automatic "get-out-of-jail-free card." Rather it requires the court to take into account circumstances facing Aboriginal peoples. Where the crime is relatively minor, the court should consider Aboriginal-based sentencing principles such as restorative justice. This incorporates community members and the victim in determining a fit sentence. However, where the crime is more serious, courts will generally find that the Gladue Principle is inappropriate and consider more traditional sentencing objectives such as protection of the public and deterrence.

Here's a typical story that infuriates Canadians, drunk native bitch kills four people with her car, serves one month of a ten year sentence then is moved to a "healing lodge" basically a government run country club for native dirt bags, its likely much nicer to live there then the shit hole reservation or urban crack den she was staying in before. http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/drunk-drive...-1.3300680

[Mochihunter]

I've been following this guy for a while now. His appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast is great if you have the time. A much needed ally for the read pilled movement.

[questor70]

This guy sort of reminds me of a cross between William F Buckley, Mister Rogers, and Joseph Campbell.

He has a formidable intellect which is rare in today's socio-political landscape.

I don't necessarily agree with everything he has to say but he sure does mount a compelling argument for all his positions. Really makes you reassess your convictions.

[MMX2010]

There have been some rumblings that the generation of people currently aged 16-21 are very conservative.

Jordan also reports that over 90% of those who hear him speak are men, which is weird because men don't listen to other men speak.

If these are correct, Jordan's advice above will be a linchpin in getting that generation of men happily married, and raising children.

[Blaster]

Peterson says what amounts to: Feminism might really be one huge shit test that the West has failed.

He puts it in more analytical terms with lots of disclaimers but that's basically the idea he's working towards. He pulls a quote from somewhere that he can't remember: "Men test ideas, Women test men." Then he points out that provocation tends to be a very good way of testing someone, and that women have been very successful at egalitarianism in the West.

Clip is from the most recent lecture in his Biblical Series.

[Ghost Tiger]

[url=https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/872981497032134657][/url]

[TooFineAPoint]

^
you wanted him to use more rhetoric, now he's really starting to have some fun

[Ghost Tiger]

(06-09-2017 12:42 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

^
you wanted him to use more rhetoric, now he's really starting to have some fun

He's definitely getting in the game now. I am impressed.

[url=https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/873053208763023361][/url]

[TooFineAPoint]

Unlikely heroes: a reality tv star and a Canadian university professor just might salvage their generation.