[debeguiled]

(04-05-2017 10:30 AM)great white Wrote:  

(04-05-2017 10:10 AM)debeguiled Wrote:  

His main point is that when you think about your beliefs, you really don't think, you just re-affirm your conclusions, and the same is true of when you talk with friends who agree with you.

could you explain to me why is there such OBSESSION with "beliefs" in the states? "i believe this, i believe that, etc., etc.". well, kids believe in santa claus, so what?

knowledge >>> belief.

edit: this actually started with the founders themselves: stating "we hold [=believe?] hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." while holding african slaves simply doesn't compute for this humble european.

edit2: https://youtu.be/QemYNQfix-c?t=47s [dave chapelle on george washington/declaration of independence]

I was using it as a synonym for the conclusions you have come to, your thoughts, your arguments, your knowledge, not in the sense of faith.

I don't think people in the states are obsessed with beliefs. They are obsessed with feelings. Feelings have taken the place of thoughts. And there is a good reason for that. You are the expert on your feelings, the final arbiter, so you can never be proven wrong. I cringe whenever, and it is often, someone says, "I feel that . . ."

This phrase has replaced the phrase, "I think that . . ."

[TravelerKai]

(04-05-2017 11:25 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(04-05-2017 11:15 AM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

The biggest problem with your post is that you assume Bush was conservative to begin with.

If you think I assumed that, then you didn't understand my post.

You are right, I read it again and it does not seem to suggest that. I guess you are just saying that others that identify as such are just blindly supporting that person as one, when they should not do that.

In that case, questioning the conservative views of those said voters would be more in line as opposed to actual leaders like Bush or Obama themselves. Well, the country has alot more moderates than most recognize because of the loudmouths on the other two sides. Some people that voted for Bush also voted for Obama. Those people would more likely fit the video and your post. The others on the polar sides, obviously would not.

Either way, none of these people are extreme like RIslander said. Even these goofball liberals attacking people are straddling the fence. Once they start carrying guns and using them on conservatives out in the open, then we will have some form of extremism. If the US govt. were to engage in any level of tyranny like that (state sponsored), then that is extremism as well.

[great white]

(04-05-2017 11:38 AM)debeguiled Wrote:  

[people in the states] are obsessed with feelings. Feelings have taken the place of thoughts. And there is a good reason for that. You are the expert on your feelings, the final arbiter, so you can never be proven wrong. I cringe whenever, and it is often, someone says, "I feel that . . ."

This phrase has replaced the phrase, "I think that . . ."

:-)

edit: "so you can never be proven wrong." this is incorrect. being an extremely well-developed empath [see my handle/avatar] i can feel for people what they are too numb to feel themselves. the world of feelings is no less "objective" [in the context of a given person, of course], than the world of externally expressed thoughts.

[Leonard D Neubache]

The elites get us persistently on this because they choose who we get to vote for. Elite shill branded 'right' or elite shill branded 'left'.

This is why we're all so desperate to believe that Trump is a genuine outsider and that everyone who participated in getting him elected has rocked the apple cart in the most incredible way.

On that, though, only time will tell.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Well the Jordan Peterson fans wanted to keep their thread purely to discuss Peterson material and that's a reasonable request in my opinion, but Peterson is a man of growing influence and in gathering a demographic to himself that would otherwise be associated with the Right he warrants thorough investigation.

The various accusations are typical. Peterson is controlled opposition. Peterson is approved opposition. I would argue that at very least the latter is inarguable, and it carries certain connotations about whether Peterson's mantras will propel his follower to lead lives of any greater relevance to society. Perhaps that was never the point.

Regardless, Roosh's tweet was short and to the point.

[url=https://twitter.com/rooshv/status/995667702512484352][/url]

Peterson's message is not entirely without merit, which is why I suggest that the Peterson fans be left a space to exclusively discuss his work, but more broadly speaking Peterson must also be judged not only for what he gives the Right but what he takes away from it.

So this is the thread where I would encourage people to ask the difficult questions about Jordan Peterson and provide evidence or intelligent conjecture.

Fire away.

p.s. Peterson has opened himself to debate over the JQ and racial identity politics so triple parenthesis talk, racial voting trends and anything else politically incorrect are up for debate, all provided it falls within the forum rules.

[Teedub]

I'm not sure why Leonard's thread was closed down, but may I humbly suggest that the 'Digging deeper on Jordan Peterson' section take place in this thread, for the reasons he laid out in his post.

Quote:

Edit: I originally quoted the closed thread here, though it would seem Roosh moved Leonard's post in the closed thread to this thread, hence its sudden appearance above mine.

For the record, I'm one of the "Jordan Peterson fans" Leonard was referring to. If this thread is also closed, may I also humbly request the reason why.

[Roosh]

I retitled this thread to be about Jordan Peterson's politics. The thread in EE can deal with his work in general.

[rotekz]

Vox has posted excerpts from Maps of Meaning to highlight the level of crazy we're dealing with and how he is undoubtable a globalist with a utopian vision of our world where group identity has been eradicated. His political vision and goals are remarkably similar to that of George Soros.
https://voxday.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/di...mment-form

Quote:

Direct from the lunatic's mouth

This is the most informative, and damning, section of Maps of Meaning. Perhaps it will help some of the morons and midwits who have never read any of this and simply can't seem to grasp that Jordan Peterson is a globalist lunatic with delusions of grandiosity and a Messiah complex despite it being repeatedly pointed out to them.

I have put what I consider to be the most important revelations in bold. It's a bit frustrating, since I have been telling people about this since the day I read what confirmed my earlier suspicions about the man, but instead of simply going to the source and determining if I was telling the truth or not, literally scores of Peterson defenders opted to instead accuse me of everything from jealousy to slander to invention. But it is not only all right there, it has all been right there since 1999!

Quote:

Christ said, the kingdom of heaven is spread out upon the earth, but men do not see it. What if it was nothing but our self-deceit, our cowardice, hatred and fear, that pollutes our experience and turns the world into hell? This is a hypothesis, at least—as good as any other, admirable and capable of generating hope. Why can't we make the experiment, and find out if it is true?

The central ideas of Christianity are rooted in Gnostic philosophy, which, in accordance with psychological laws, simply had to grow up at a time when the classical religions had become obsolete. It was founded on the perception of symbols thrown up by the unconscious individuation process which always sets in when the collective dominants of human life fall into decay. At such a time there is bound to be a considerable number of individuals who are possesed by archetypes of a numinous nature that force their way to the surface in order to form new dominants.

This state of possession shows itself almost without exception in the fact that the possessed identify themselves with the archetypal contents of their unconscious, and, because they do not realize that the role which is being thrust upon them is the effect of new contents still to be understood, they exemplify these concretely in their own lives, thus becoming prophets and reformers.

In so far as the archetypal content of the Christian drama was able to give satisfying expression to the uneasy and clamorous unconscious of the many, the consensus omnium raised this drama to a universally binding truth—not of course by an act of judgment, but by the irrational fact of possession, which is far more effective.

Thus Jesus became the tutelary image or amulet against the archetypal powers that threatened to possess everyone. The glad tidings announced: “It has happened, but it will not happen to you inasmuch as you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God!”

Yet it could and it can and it will happen to everyone in whom the Christian dominant has decayed....

Dear Dad

I promised you that one day I would tell you what the book I am trying to write is supposed to be about. I haven't been working on it much in the last month, although in some regards it is always on my mind and everything I learn, in my other work, has some bearing upon it. Because I have abandoned it, temporarily, I thought perhaps I could tell you about it, and that would help me organize my thoughts.

I don't completely understand the driving force behind what I have been working on, although I understand it better now than I used to, three or four years ago, when it was literally driving me crazy. I had been obsessed with the idea of war for three or four years prior to that, often dreaming extremely violent dreams, centered around the theme of destruction. I believe now that my concern with death on a mass scale was intimately tied into my personal life, and that concerns with the meaning of life on a personal level (which arise with the contemplation of death) took a general form for me, which had to do with the value of humanity, and the purpose of life in general.

Carl Jung has suggested that all personal problems are relevant to society, because we are all so much alike, and that any sufficiently profound solution to a personal problem may, if communicated, reduce the likelihood of that problem existing in anyone's experience in the future. This is in fact how society and the individual support one another. It was in this way that my concern with war, which is the application of death on the general level, led me into concepts and ideas concerning the meaning of life on the personal level, which I could never have imagined as relevant, or believable, prior to learning about them—and which I still believe border on what might normally be considered insanity.

The reasons for war, many believe, are rooted in politics. Since it is groups of men that fight, and since groups indulge in politics, this belief seems well-founded and in fact contains some truth. It is just as true, however, that it is a good thing to look for something you don't want to find in a place where you know it won't be—and the modern concern with global politics, and the necessity to be involved in a “good cause, ” rather than to live responsibly, seems to me to be evidence that the desire not to find often overpowers the real search for truth. You see, it is true that people don't want the truth, because the truth destroys what lack of faith erects, and the false comfort it contains. It is not possible to live in the world that you wish could be, and in the real world at the same time, and it often seems a bad bargain to destroy fantasy for reality. It is desire for lack of responsibility that underlies this evasion, in part—but it is also fear of possibility. At least this is how it seems to me.

Because everyone is a product of their times, and because that applies to me as well, I looked for what I wanted to find where it was obvious to everyone it would be—in politics, in political science, in the study of group behavior. This took up the years I spent involved with the NDP, and in studying political science, until I learned that the application of a system of thought, like socialism (or any other ism, for that matter) to a problem, and solving that problem, were not the same thing. In the former case, you have someone (who is not you) to blame—the rich, the Americans, the white people, the government, the system—whatever, as long as it is someone else.

I came to realize, slowly, that a problem of global proportions existed as a problem because everyone on the globe thought and acted to maintain that problem. Now what that means is that if the problem has a solution, then what everyone thinks is wrong—and that meant, too, that what I thought had to be fundamentally wrong. Now the problem with this line of reasoning is simple. It leads inexorably to the following conclusion: the more fundamental the problem, the more fundamental the error—in my own viewpoint.

I came to believe that survival itself, and more, depended upon a solution to the problem of war. This made me consider that perhaps everything I believed was wrong. This consideration was not particularly pleasant, and was severely complicated by the fact that I had also come to realize that, although I definitely believed a variety of things, I did not always know what I believed—and when I knew what, I did not know why.

You see, history itself conditioned everything I believed, even when I did not know it, and it was sheer unconscious arrogance that made me posit to begin with that I had half a notion of who or what I was, or what the process of history had created, and how I was affected by that creation.

It is one thing to be unconscious of the answers, and quite another to be unable to even consider the question.

I had a notion that confronting what terrified me—what turned my dreams against me—could help me withstand that terrible thing. This idea—granted me by the grace of God—allowed me to believe that I could find what I most wanted (if I could tolerate the truth; if I was willing to follow wherever it led me; if I was willing to devote my life to acting upon what I had discovered, whatever that might be, without reservation— knowing somehow that once started, an aborted attempt would destroy at least my self-respect, at most my sanity and desire to live).

I believe now that everyone has this choice in front of them, even when they do not know or refuse to admit it; that everyone makes this choice, with every decision and action they take.

I mentioned earlier that history conditioned what I think and acted. Pursuit of this realization—which is rather self-evident, once realized—has led me to the study of history, as a psychological phenomenon. You see, if what I think and am is a product of history, that means that history must take form inside me, so to speak, and from inside me determine who I am. This is easier to understand if you consider that I carry around inside me an image of you—composed of memories of how you act, and what you expected, and depictions of your behavior. This image has had profound impact on howI behaved, as a child—when, even in your absence, I was compelled to follow the rules which you followed (and which I learned through imitation, and which you instilled into me, through praise and punishment). Sometimes that image of you, in me, even takes the form of a personality, when I dream about you.

So it is a straightforward matter to believe, from the psychological point of view, that each individual carries around an image of his parents, and that this image governs his behavior, at least in part.

But you see it is the case that the rules that you followed—and which I learned from you—were not rules that you yourself created, but rather those that you handed to me just as you had been handed them while still a child.

And it is more than likely true that the majority of what I learned from you was never verbalized—that the rules which governed the way you acted (and that I learned while watching you) were implicit in your behavior, and are now implicit in mine. It was exactly in this manner that I learned language—mostly from watching and listening, partly from explicit instruction. And just as it is certainly possible (and most commonly so) to speak correctly and yet to be unable to describe the rules of grammar that “underlie” the production of language, it is possible to act upon the world and make assumptions about its nature without knowing much about the values and beliefs that necessarily underlie those actions and assumptions.

The structure of our language has been created in a historical process, and is in a sense an embodiment of that process. The structure of that which governs our actions and perceptions has also been created during the course of history, and is the embodiment of history.

The implications of this idea overwhelmed me. I have been attempting to consider history itself as a unitary phenomenon—as a single thing, in a sense—in order to understand what it is, and how it affects what I think and do. If you realize that history is in some sense in your head, and you also realize that you know nothing of the significance of history, of its meaning—which is almost certainly true—then you must realize that you know nothing of the significance of yourself, and of y our own meaning.

I am writing my book in an attempt to explain the psychological significance of history—to explain the meaning of history. In doing so, I have “discovered” a number of interesting things:

1.All cultures, excepting the Western, do not possess a history based on “objective events.” The history of alternative cultures—even those as highly developed as the Indian, Chinese, and ancient Greco-Roman—is mythological, which means that it describes what an event meant, in psychological terms, instead of how it happened, in empirical terms.

2.All cultures, even those most disparate in nature, develop among broadly predictable lines, and have, within their mythological history, certain constant features (just as all languages share grammatical structure, given a sufficiently abstract analysis). The lines among which culture develops are determined biologically, and the rules which govern that development are the consequence of the pyschological expression of neurophysiological structures. (This thesis will be the most difficult for me to prove, but I have some solid evidence in its favor, and as I study more neuroanatomy and neuropsychology, the evidence becomes clearer).

3.Mythological renditions of history, like those in the Bible, are just as “true” as the standard Western empirical renditions, just as literally true, but how they are true is different. Western historians describe (or think they describe) “what” happened. The traditions of mythology and religion describe the significance of what happened (and it must be noted that if what happens is without significance, it is irrelevant).

Anyway—I can't explain in one letter the full scope of what I am planning to do. In this book, I hope to describe a number of historical tendencies, and how they affect individual behavior—in the manner I have attempted in this letter. More importantly, perhaps, I hope to describe not only what the problem is (in historical terms), but where a possible solution might lie, and what that solution conceivably could be—and I hope to describe it in a manner that makes its application possible.

If you 're interested in me telling you more (I can't always tell if someone is interested) then I will, later. I don't know, Dad, but I think I have discovered something that no one else has any idea about, and I'm not sure I can do it justice. Its scope is so broad that I can see only parts of it clearly at one time, and it is exceedingly difficult to set down comprehensibly in writing. You see, most of the kind of knowledge that I am trying to transmit verbally and logically has always been passed down from one person to another by means of art and music and religion and tradition, and not by rational explanation, and it is like translating from one language to another. It's not just a different language, though—it is an entirely different mode of experience.

Anyways

I'm glad that you and Mom are doing well. Thank you for doing my income tax returns.

Jordan

It has been almost twelve years since I first grasped the essence of the paradox that lies at the bottom of human motivation for evil: People need their group identification, because that identification protects them, literally, from the terrible forces of the unknown. It is for this reason that every individual who is not decadent will strive to protect his territory, actual and psychological. But the tendency to protect means hatred of the other, and the inevitability of war—and we are now too technologically powerful to engage in war. To allow victory to the other, however—or even continued existence, on his terms—means subjugation, dissolution of protective structure, and exposure to that which is most feared. For me, this meant “damned if you do, damned if you don't”: belief systems regulate affect, but conflict between belief systems is inevitable.

Formulation and understanding of this terrible paradox devastated me. I had always been convinced that sufficient understanding of a problem—any problem—would lead to its resolution. Here I was, however, possessed of understanding that seemed not only sufficient but complete, caught nonetheless between the devil and the deep blue sea. I could not see how there could be any alternative to either having a belief system or to not having a belief system—and could see little but the disadvantage of both positions.

So, in case you still haven't figured it out yet, Peterson's grand solution to war is the elimination of competing group identities. One world, one race, one identity. Evil will be vanquished and paradise on Earth will result.

Yes, it's really that stupid. And notice that in this passage, he made the very transformation from inference to fact, from thought experiment to grasping the essence of the paradox, that Schiff points out in his article on Peterson.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

I'll link here to the vid by a good autodidact youtuber:

A funny questionnaire regarding the most important self-identifier by race:

   

The idea that Peterson has a ton of non-White listeners is preposterous. Regardless of who is in those lectures - it will be mostly white Westerners who listen to him and support him.

The ones who fund him at a rate of 80.000$/month now - well - that could be partly globalist money and he is a wonderful beacon who opposes the SJWs while at the same time reaching the core demographic - middle of the road or awakening white guys. So instead of listening to the polite pro-White Westerner like Jared Taylor they should embrace even more individualism while other tribes and races continue flooding into the West until it's culture is wiped out.

As others pointed out - I don't think that is bought opposition - just approved one. He may be all for the Sustainability/Global Warming/Green dictatorship as well.

And the idea that you don't have to view him as political is not reasonable. He became famous FOR BEING POLITICAL. His life advice is not why he is getting paid almost 1 mio. $/year in donations.

You can keep things apolitical or almost - guys like Rollo Tomassi are that way. He tries his best to stay out of politics despite us knowing that he is clearly shitlord Christian conservative so we can guess his political affiliations.

Either way - JP seems ever more like a very cleverly used psyop. Later on he won't be needed anyway - these are the last years and 2 decades where White Westerners can retain their civilization. Afterwards it won't be possible anymore via voting - we shall see how it works out.

Just saw it and adding it from his book:

Quote:

I first grasped the essence of the paradox that lies at the bottom of human motivation for evil: People need their group identification, because that identification protects them, literally, from the terrible forces of the unknown. It is for this reason that every individual who is not decadent will strive to protect his territory, actual and psychological. But the tendency to protect means hatred of the other, and the inevitability of war—and we are now too technologically powerful to engage in war. To allow victory to the other, however—or even continued existence, on his terms—means subjugation, dissolution of protective structure, and exposure to that which is most feared. For me, this meant “damned if you do, damned if you don't”: belief systems regulate affect, but conflict between belief systems is inevitable.

Now - why should group identity automatically lead to hatred and war? Only certain identities are that way, but not all. Why should the Swiss who want to remain Swiss be concerned about a Japanese ethno-state unless the Japanese invade Switzerland? To the contrary - both Swiss as well as Japanese love to visit each other's countries and enjoy their differences. Why do you have to be completely uniform without any group identity?

It was not group identity that caused most wars. In WWI the Germans and French celebrated Christmas together. They had more in common with them than it seems. It's the leaders who were ordering them to kill each other. It was the Bolsheviks (mostly Jewish) who ordered the attack on the West (it would have come anyway with or without Hitler's attacks).

It's negative ideologies which create the conditions of evil or it's evil leaders!

Even rather more positive ideologies like the Christian protestants vs the Roman Catholics - those were just riled up by the church and leaders who did not want some of their followers splitting up. There was nothing taught by either Christian sect to fight against the other group. Their hatred of each other was created by their leaders and priests. The same goes for Germany and Nazis. The Germans lived happily in Polish- and Czech dominated parts before 1939. Sure - there was the usual beef, but not enough to justify an invasion. The Germans were not motivated by German ideology. It was Nazi ideology and their leadership. Ditto for the Bolsheviks - simple negative propaganda.

It seems to me that JP is indeed a globalist radical individualist who will serve his masters well via his rather Utopian ideology. His talk that borders are right and good is just wishy-washy stuff since he opposes any tribal racial or even cultural identity.

[rotekz]

Vox then goes on to answer the seven questions posed by Jordan Peterson in the extracts posted above from his book 'Maps of Meaning'.
https://voxday.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/da...erson.html

Quote:

1. What if it was nothing but our self-deceit, our cowardice, hatred and fear, that pollutes our experience and turns the world into hell?

Then the problem could be solved by sweet reason and a dedication to facing the truth about ourselves. But it isn't so it can't. And it isn't our self-deceit, cowardice, hatred, and fear, but our greed, our pride, our lusts, and our will to power. Beyond that is the problem of supernatural evil, which is totally unaffected by our internal emotions. Moreover, this concept of evil contradicts Peterson's own stated belief that it is group identification that lies at the bottom of the human motivation for evil

2. This is a hypothesis, at least—as good as any other, admirable and capable of generating hope. Why can't we make the experiment, and find out if it is true?

Because it will turn out like every other utopian experiment; in large quantities of bloodshed. Especially since Peterson is determined to try the experiment on a global level.

3. Does survival itself depend upon a solution to the problem of war?

No. Because war is not the problem as far as human survival is concerned. Neither is religion. Science, and more importantly, technology, are what pose a potential danger to the species. That being said, inasmuch as this is a problem of survival, the problem is likely to cure itself, as the infrastructure required to maintain this level of destructive technology is more fragile than either the Earth or the species.

4. Is Tammy Peterson's dream that it was five minutes to midnight back in 2016 prophetic or significant in any way?

No. It was a bad dream and nothing more. Her dream is considerably less significant than Jordan Peterson's dreams about dog-headed aliens butchering his beautiful cousin and offering the meat to him.

5. Is history itself a unitary phenomenon?

No. History is neither a force nor an inevitability. It is merely a very incomplete record of the past. Peterson is no more correct in his bizarre take on history than Marx or Fukuyama were.

6. Is Western culture the only one to possess a history based on objective events?

No. There are ancient Egyptian records of the height of the annual Nile flooding dating back to 3050 BC. The formal rules of sumo date back to 726 BC. The tax records of the Qin Dynasty date back to 221 BC.

7. Have I have discovered something that no one else has any idea about?

No, you're just a very frightened and mentally disturbed individual who was literally driven crazy due to your fear of death.

Jordan Peterson's grand solution to war is the elimination of competing group identities. One world, one race, one identity. Evil will be vanquished and paradise on Earth will result.

This is transcribed from the Darkstream below:

[Teedub]

Some posts I thought would be welcome in this thread, which I would have posted in the other thread but you guys know I wanted to keep it for Peterson's work — without sounding like a saddo, I was the guy who asked for this thread to be set up.

"I have lost respect for Jordan Peterson" — in regards to his refusal to debate Millennial Woes, as well as most white people being racist deep down, hence their obsession with "good schools" (everyone knows what that means).

There's also some good comments under this thread about his refusal to debate MW, including some detailed descriptions of ethnonationalism.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

< I might add that I understand guys like you Teedub and even the public declarations of someone like Tommy Robinson who believe in pure civic nationalism. We disagree that a 30% White British UK would be British anymore - especially when 55%+ are non-White - if we add IQs to the mix, then it just gets worse.

I think however that your ideas are not motivated by anything malicious, but more on a gross error from where I am standing. I do even think that in the future there will usually be one more advanced main race on Earth. By my estimation North Asians will dominate in the next 200-400 years. Afterwards Indians will create the most dominating race on Earth and likely spread out militarily just as the Chinese will replace the American bases (who replaced the British before).

It's how the cookie crumbles, but this is not necessarily negative or genocidal. We can disagree and still have Scotch together - also debate things openly.

[Teedub]

Tommy doesn't want Britain to be majority non-white, nor do I. I would imagine he and I both sit somewhere in between someone like Sargon who is literally race blind, and someone like Millennial Woes, who is race fixated. I'm like Tommy, lots of my friendship group is mixed race, fully black, and others (like Bojangles, who you've met) so this stuff is tricky for me as I'm emotionally invested. But, yeah we can have a tasty alcoholic beverage some day and debate this stuff in person!

[Leonard D Neubache]

The more I hear about JP's psychological issues and his bizarre, abstract dreams from which he seems to draw immense relevance, the more concerned I am about him leading anyone anywhere.

I've been reflecting a lot on the Red Pill in general today and as time goes by I am brought more to peace with this world when I pursue the truth without an agenda (other than self preservation perhaps). In this sense the truth is setting me free.

On the other hand I increasingly see in others what I recall festering in myself months and years ago. A desperation to make my world view mesh with the evidence of my observations. No matter how smart you are, if you refuse to accept what is plainly obvious in a quest to believe something "more noble" then there will always be a schism in your relationship with the world and everything in it.

So much insanity is born of a refusal to face the truth. The truth sets you free, and lies, no matter how benevolent, will drive you mad.

This is one of the reasons I don't trust Jordan Peterson. The more I embrace the truth the better I sleep at night. On the other hand, lying stains the soul and I can only imagine what lying to hundreds of thousands if not millions of men does to the liar. Does Jordan Peterson believe what he preaches on some level? Maybe. But at his core he's a high IQ man easily capable of making the observations that I have. I therefore can only presume that he knowingly or subconsciously suppresses those seemingly ugly observations in the pursuit of preaching a more beautiful lie. It would certainly explain his severe depression and nightmares.

Personally it took for me to take the red pill on race before I came to peace with everything I had observed over the last decade, and it was a brutal intellectual undertaking that required stripping back decades of brainwashing.

It's my opinion that if Jordan Peterson truly believed what he was preaching and that it was not at odds with his observations of the world then he would be sleeping like a baby and truly at peace, the way only an honest millionaire can be.

[captain_shane]

I wonder what the odds are that Peterson is actually jewish?

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Well sure - if he constantly taunts himself with the memories of the Bolshevik and then the Nazi slaughters and his only solution is to literally get rid of any race and collectivist thinking (except Israel/Jewish of course), so that a one-race one-world utopia is the only solution to all this waiting slaughter, then yes - I guess he makes his life hard mentally.

The world is not one step away from slaughter due to clannish thinking. That used to be the case in history yes. But most often it was either negative ideologies (10-20%) while the ruling reason for strife is that psychopathic leaders like to get shit, they love killing, they love plunder, they love sewing strife and some even regal in blanket murder. This would not go away even if we HAD ONE RACE! The psychopaths would find different ways to get their part of the world to unite under them - they would say that the South American Terrans are different from the North American one-race Terrans and off to war it would go, because the psychopaths from either side wish to get more of everything.

But how do you get rid of psychopaths which are born even as sons to great kind kings? Don't make me laugh - his ideology and idea of utopia is ridiculous, unrealistic. Holding back Whites from uniting so that they can retain their civilization does not mean that you prevent Nazis to rise. It just means that you destroy one civilization which is actually highly individualistic already and also highly altruist. Wiping out Whitey would make the world worse and more tribal not less.

But yeah - he wants everyone to behave that way - good luck with convincing Africans, Chinese and Indians to be universally individualist.

It would be actually far more realistic if you could enforce mandatory psychopathy/sociopath testing of every political leader or ruler. If only folk with a loving and sane mentality would rule, then the world would have a chance of becoming utopia. But that would be teaching something that his sponsors would not like to hear - better let the serfs become one race and one people without any affiliations whatsoever (all against millions of years of internalized evolution that actually works against it - you need to be taught civic nationalism in every generation, while clannish affiliation is the natural default state that everyone goes into). And no - genocide without any recourse shortages is also not natural - most folk after survival and some comfort have no desire to invade other countries and kill. That is also an unnatural drive that has to be taught or ordered to - either by an ideology or a leader.

[Easy_C]

(05-27-2018 11:21 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

The more I hear about JP's psychological issues and his bizarre, abstract dreams from which he seems to draw immense relevance, the more concerned I am about him leading anyone anywhere.

I've been reflecting a lot on the Red Pill in general today and as time goes by I am brought more to peace with this world when I pursue the truth without an agenda (other than self preservation perhaps). In this sense the truth is setting me free.

On the other hand I increasingly see in others what I recall festering in myself months and years ago. A desperation to make my world view mesh with the evidence of my observations. No matter how smart you are, if you refuse to accept what is plainly obvious in a quest to believe something "more noble" then there will always be a schism in your relationship with the world and everything in it.

So much insanity is born of a refusal to face the truth. The truth sets you free, and lies, no matter how benevolent, will drive you mad.

This is one of the reasons I don't trust Jordan Peterson. The more I embrace the truth the better I sleep at night. On the other hand, lying stains the soul and I can only imagine what lying to hundreds of thousands if not millions of men does to the liar. Does Jordan Peterson believe what he preaches on some level? Maybe. But at his core he's a high IQ man easily capable of making the observations that I have. I therefore can only presume that he knowingly or subconsciously suppresses those seemingly ugly observations in the pursuit of preaching a more beautiful lie. It would certainly explain his severe depression and nightmares.

Personally it took for me to take the red pill on race before I came to peace with everything I had observed over the last decade, and it was a brutal intellectual undertaking that required stripping back decades of brainwashing.

It's my opinion that if Jordan Peterson truly believed what he was preaching and that it was not at odds with his observations of the world then he would be sleeping like a baby and truly at peace, the way only an honest millionaire can be.

Here's what I consider to be a reasonable question:

Who do you consider to NOT be controlled and approved opposition?

On that list I'd probably put Snowden, Greenwald, Assange, etc. There's a few on the right who havent' been aggressively deplatformed but I very highly doubt people think Roosh and other pick up artist types moved into politics are particularly big threats.

Interesting thing there is that the most vicious retribution hasn't been against a lot of right wingers. People like Spencer and Duke still get plenty of mainstream attention. Wikileaks on other hand was cut off from banks, credit card companies, attacked with false "rape" charges, forced onto darkweb, and smeared with rumors of Russian collusion.



Sidenote:

What Peterson ACTUALLY says about white race identity isn't either what the Vox followers think he is saying or what people wish he was saying:

[loremipsum]

A problem that sort of test would quickly create is that the powers that be would make all sane straight white males insane. Just how nowadays every neverheard psychologist cuck claims all sorts of mental health issues on Trump.

[Easy_C]

Oh of course, but that's something very few people without training or experience in governance issues understand.


Still this wouldn't be the first time Vox has popped off and gotten completely the wrong conclusion about people. Hell he's gone after CHRISTIAN writers before trying to attack them as being Richard Dawkins allies. He's kind of intelligent but ultimately lacks the character to be the effective movement leader he wants to be; he's prone to the kind of gamma rage lashouts popularized by Walter White.


Besides, everyone in this whole "Jews run the world" crowd is very fucking wrong, and seem to mostly have an axe to grind. If they were actually interested in the truth they'd have dived deeper than the depth of the puddle that is talking about the "JQ" (a lot of which is intentionally misleading). The truth is actually MUCH worse than that and I don't really talk about it because I don't want to draw attention to myself but I can PM people who are interested in being pointed in the right direction. Yes they're powerful but they do not run the show.

The term "Medes" ( Not a coincidence that they run the "Media" and are often "intermediaries" in jobs like Wall Street positions.) exists for a reason and there's a strong genetic connection between them and the jews. If they're the middlemen then....middlemen don't exactly run the show but are just the messengers and money changers.

Start asking exactly how the hell they got so powerful, who they see to be working for, how they got picked out as the "chosen people", why the overlaps with the other ancient religious texts are so important, etc.

Other key question: let's go with Vox day's frame of creationism. Does it seem anywhere, even remotely within the realm of reason, that the same entity who showed up in the New Testament preaching power through virtue was the same entity that genocided entire populations just to make room for the jews?

[nomadbrah]

(05-27-2018 07:01 AM)rotekz Wrote:  

Vox has posted excerpts from Maps of Meaning to highlight the level of crazy we're dealing with and how he is undoubtable a globalist with a utopian vision of our world where group identity has been eradicated. His political vision and goals are remarkably similar to that of George Soros.
https://voxday.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/di...mment-form

Very interesting.

I am still not sure if Peterson is a genius or a charlatan, maybe a bit of both, because in the excerpt there are examples of both.

In favor of genius, his outline of history as a psychological phenomenon, strikes me as legitimately a creative idea. Perhaps not so much the idea of history manifesting in the living (consider the idea of rebirth, ancestor worship etc), but the application of it in psychology is interesting.

One could argue that Jung already dealt with this topic. I haven't read Jung more than at glance, so can't decide on that.

He is an extremely important point though, that mythological history (showing as psychological history), is as "real" as so called objective history. This is something I struggle with often. The knowledge that a majority of what our generation knows about history, as a psychological reality, is simply false. A myth, yet a reality in a psychological sense. It's important. Very important.

Then again, is it really. Does people not feel some sort of faint whisper, a rush of blood trying to penetrate from beneath the earth? "A shared memory of our race called instinct" as Connor Doyle wrote.

You would wonder of course, why Peterson hasn't explored this topic more. Why didn't he end up at the Frankfurt school? Why didn't he realize the many, many lies told about history since WW2?

Some of his writing here strikes me as manic, like he is having a borderline psychotic religious experience. He thinks his, admittedly intriguing outlines, are some sort of mystical revelation. Seems he kept his sanity together though.

Then there is his last conclusive, Kumbaya, one world, John Lennon Imagine, nonsense. Maybe that's written after the SSRI's kicked in.

[BortimusPrime]

I'd argue the biggest question with JP is whether he's running a scam or if he's been seduced by his own rise to fame. It's clear that he's making an enormous amount of money off his book sales and patreon donations. It's also clear that interest in his books and donations to him are driven up massively when he's interviewed by the MSM or gets protested at a speaking event. In both cases it's the perception of him being treated unfairly when he makes a reasonable argument that drives the attention.

Now if I wanted to make lots of money and was capable of speaking in public without making dirty jokes then I'd be doing exactly what Peterson is doing. Make the bulk of your self-help content basic shit that isn't particularly contentious: put your panties on one leg at a time, clean your toilet before you clean society, organize the porn on your hard drive, etc. Then sprinkle in some common sense opinions that piss off the blue-haired brigade in order to make yourself controversial, but not so controversial that you scare people away from interviewing you for fear of guilt by association.

What really convinced me that this is a scam is the video by Millennial Woes where he tries to arrange an interview with JP and gets absolutely no response. It's clear at this point that aside from denouncing the alt right with correct thoughts on twitter, JP will not have anything to do with them or even allow himself to be seen interacting with them, which would explain him getting Faith Goldy kicked from that talk. The only reason for this is that he needs to keep the accusations of him being alt right very obviously slanderous in order to maintain the book sales and donations from the normies that recoil when they see some guy with a shaved head and a memento mori on his bookshelf talk about white genocide on youtube.

The thing is, this creates a sort of cognitive dissonance where JP has to go on about left-wing anti-white rhetoric, race-baiting, and public violence, while simultaneously insisting that Richard Spencer taking a cock out of his mouth long enough to go wave a wicker candle from Pier 1 Imports is somehow on the same scale and an equivalent existential threat to civilization. One can certainly argue from history that ethno-nationalist collectives can get out of control just as easily as left-wing internationalist collectives, but it's pretty obvious that only one of those presently has mass backing in the media and academia, and picking on the ethno-nationalists is like picking on the little crippled boy instead of the popular jock.

[NoMoreTO]

(05-27-2018 11:49 AM)captain_shane Wrote:  

I wonder what the odds are that Peterson is actually jewish?

He's from Northern Alberta, and his last name is Peterson (like Peter the apostle) so basically zero.

[Rush87]

(05-27-2018 07:58 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Afterwards Indians will create the most dominating race on Earth and likely spread out militarily just as the Chinese will replace the American bases (who replaced the British before).

Of all the worst possible scenarios for the future, Indians ruling the world would have to take the cake... This theory is based on what?

[Easy_C]

(05-27-2018 07:46 PM)Rush87 Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 07:58 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Afterwards Indians will create the most dominating race on Earth and likely spread out militarily just as the Chinese will replace the American bases (who replaced the British before).

Of all the worst possible scenarios for the future, Indians ruling the world would have to take the cake... This theory is based on what?

Assuming humanity exists long enough for a third empire cycle to play out.

[Easy_C]

Also here's something to ponder for those of you advocating how this needs to be a "white identity movement".

You're posting this on a community created by a Middle Eastern man. Are you seriously going to go ahead and tell Roosh that he's not welcome to be a part of the movement? What about Atlanta man, Cobra, all the other contributors on here who absolutely love the traditional values associated with the old-school America and who are willing to do a lot to stand up for it?

Those of you following this line of argument very obviously don't actually believe it because you're still here, on this site, posting on boards belonging to one of those genetically inferior low IQ race people.