Thougts on Jordan Peterson

But you see, if I claim that Jews have an average IQ of 115 and then further assume that billionaires have an IQ of 145+ I can then calculate a standard IQ distribution curve and explain Jewish dominance in the media and other institutions based on meritocracy.
Check mate, you average IQ plebs.

All those New York Times journalists that nobody likes all have a 145+ IQ with especially high verbal strength, the proof is in the pudding, bigoys.

This is a case fop social success = high intelligence.
What else would a smart person want to do other than become rich and maybe famous?

Your IQ rises with nepotism by at least three deviation points.
Nepotism acts on a subconscious level.

Individualism is like the Brexit movement.
The exploitation of Tribalism in an environment where collectivism dominates.
It's anarchy on the SuperState level: all nations should free themselves from a superstate and remain independent.
A very romantic idealism evolved in a world of open frontiers and unclaimed territories.
In this Behavioural Sink world remaining an anarchist, a staunch individualist, while your neighbour is organizing an army, is idiocy.
You will not survive in a world as die-hard individualist when others are practicing collectivism and nepotism.
Not for long, anyway.

This is how they say one thing, do a second and think a third.
I always focus on the act, first and above all other bullshit about theories and ideals.
The act came first, and it was good, and it was named, given a symbol, baptized.

No matter what they say or think, the act exposes the thought and reveals the lies in the words.

The argument of Jewish over-representation, I've heard said by Sean Last in his video on it, being explained as "nepotism having no negative effect because of Jewish high IQ", from a free market perspective, is dumb. If whites had ethnic/racial nepotism in America, there'd be hardly an infrastructure for non-whites to even get off the ground. In fact, that Jews can practice open nepotism while no other ethnicities can, is just increasing their collective power. Ethnic nepotism is literally what countries/states are used for. Saying there's some 'free market' out there presumes the state of 'free', 'free from violence'. It is only within the state that there is enforced a no-violence cooperation. Being granted the ability to practice nepotism while others can't (via violent enforcement) is a benefit in itself.

It's an honorary double-standard we bestow upon the 'chosen' lords of all victims.
Collectivism is only bad when anyone but they practice it, and nepotism is good when these 'high IQ' chosen ones, are participating it for the 'good of mankind'.

Everyone else ought to be an American style individualist.
The elite victims keep the 'purity' of their victimhood by in-breeding, which produces high linguistic intelligence, but the lower level victims must mix their inferior genes, eliminating any high intelligent threat to the elites.

Food for thought....



-Statistics direct the mind towards an interpretation of data.
-The statistical analysis can be warped by the statisticians manner in which he forms the question, and that he posits the question at all.

That aside...and I wrote something else and changed my mind....
The idea that Oprah Winfrey is a genius, is ridiculous...or that only genius' become rich, is insane.
There are many factors contributing to wealth acquisition, and the most important one, other than conscientiousness, as Peterson would claim, is the passion, desire to become wealthy.
Most smart people I've come across do not want to make money in excess to what they need.
What is required, the time and effort, and what one has to do, against his own principles, does not justify the outcome, for many.

The richest people I've met, are morons who are governed by social norms.
Granted, to become extremely wealthy you do need a higher than average intelligence, but to become rich you need an average or slightly above-average intelligence.
An absence of any moral barrier is also essential. you can't make money without exploiting and stepping on people.

A people with the past of the 'chosen', would develop a very passionate desire to excel (prove themselves) and to protect their own group (defensiveness) - a high level of nepotism, would not expose itself.
Furthermore, the religion they worship cultivates linguistics, and uses a form of eugenics that contradicts Peterson's American-style individualism.

Satyr wrote:

A people with the past of the 'chosen', would develop a very passionate desire to excel (prove themselves) and to protect their own group (defensiveness) - a high level of nepotism, would not expose itself.

Isn't it interesting how the only Jews who admit there's group nepotism end up being declared 'self-hating'

Peterson is revealing himself.
His MRA schtick is exposed as Abrahamic apologetics.
It's why he does not confront Judaism and its double-standard. Well, one of the reasons.
A christian has very little to say against the Abrahamic dogma... their differences are semantics and that nasty business about crucifying the "messiah".

As nihilism becomes more bold, having brainwashed so many for so long, they begin o take risks and then they exposed themselves.
At this point, nihilism is so dominant that this has become an internal conflict among the Abrahamic triad...because secularism resulted in the absurdity of Transhumanism, and long with it the entire foundation of nihilistic dogmas: linguistics semiology, exploiting idiocy, and seducing the needy and desperate.
The fall-back position, once their soft-underbelly is exposed, is to retreat to what worked in the past, and for over 2000 years.

Peterson has his christian arse handed to him by Dillahunty.
Morality does not require a god.
God is a metaphor that can also mean humanity.
Morality is the fear of retribution by the collective....because man is a social organism. A species that was not social would not require a god representing the collective.
our socialization has been ingrained as a conscience, in relation to others belonging to our group, or those who resemble us and we need to reproduce and to survive.
This can expand, using brainwashing, to include vagueness called universe, but that's a topic that requires a lot of explanation.

I'm not a typical atheist...but in relation to Abrahamic deism i am.
My theism is more naturalistic.
I believe gods are psychologically necessary, primarily for the masses.
There are those, like myself, who do not need the concept at all....but the majority want this anthropomorphic metaphor to explain the inexplicable, to the complicated, and to help them cope with life's uncertainties. But I do believe the gods, as the ancient Aryans believed them, were valuable symbols connecting man with an unknown self and world, and how they interact.  
Primarily the gods were useful in a world where not all is ordered. It is chaos, or the randomness of energies, that makes existence mysterious, and free-will possible.
The gods were a way of incorporating chaos into forms that the mind could conceptualize.

In relation to the abrahamic one-god, the perfect one, I am indeed an atheist.  
The concept contradicts existence.
It is an idea(l) that is contradicted with the experienced real - it is an idea with only a symbol, a word, externalizing it...or any art-form.

Most 'atheists' are not Christian, they're Abrahamic; which Satanism partakes of. 'Real atheists' are rare, extremely rare - having overcome both Pagan and Abrahamic theism. Instead, their label gives it away: anti-theist generally, like Semites like to frame the world as anti-Semites when they're challenged (I believe being of Arabic y-chromosome and Euro-Aryan X chromosome; if recent research isn't a lie).

One gets into even muddier waters when they start claiming atheism alongside humanism, which generally it seems most non-Jewish atheists tend to do. Jews hate humanism because it's a presupposition of the validity of meritocraticism  (anti-social justice).

Saying nothing about Peterson, this guy seems to frame himself as atheist but is another Satanist. Part of the problem he has with people identifying him as Abrahamic is also why he supports this pronoun bullshit: Someone should just accept what I call myself instead of categorizing me in a way I don't like.

Was Peterson unable to approach it this way from the religious instead of the concrete sex angle?

The idea that you can't be 'moral without a god' is an admission that most people are not 'good' because they are so innately, but because they have to be coerced and seduced to remain disciplined to collective rules.
What these freaks are saying is that HEY cannot remain rational and disciplined to collective interests unless there's a threat and a promise.

Abrahamism, and all spirituality for that matter, is useful to help the mediocre mind cope with his lot in life, and to remain humble and disciplined.
Saying something, like an idea called god, is a useful tool is not the same as saying it is 'true'.
Philosophy is not about what is useful, what is in our best interests, what makes us feel good.
it may very well lead to this, as a side-effect, but it is not its primary motive. Not for any thinker worth shit.
Being an internet guru who is motivated by a need to help people, does not make you a philosopher.

The first read-flag with Peterson was that vid of him weeping when thinking of how individuals suffer.
That was a symptom that something was going on underneath....like a volcano smoking hints at subterranean pressures accumulating beneath the earth's surface.
The second red-flag was how he answered the JQ question. That a trained psychologist would go for what feminists use, or what liberals use, against anyone who confronts their beliefs, was an eye opener....that he would say that anyone who points out Jewish domination si really jealous, was the moment I lost all respect for him.

I think this is the beginning of the end, for him.
He had a good run milking morons by telling them what is self-evident, and common sense in a way that does not hurt their feelings, but, like the MGTOW explosion, it remained in the male/female area, and did not dare to venture out of it, towards race.

I see spirituality as a tribal behavior, like Gods and religions used to be; they represented esoteric processes of the individuals in a tribe and provided guidance to their behavior to ensure cooperation through ever increasing promise. I see it partly as an erotic thing, a 'popular' religion is able to get as many followers as possible when it is nihilistic - but a powerful spirituality is able to maintain cooperation while trimming the excess. Generally, in Pagan religions, the punishments of excess were performed by worldly engagement and not by some sort of God decree. All Pagan 'decrees' were warnings of consequences you'll face if you fail them, not the guarantee of those consequences. There was no 'thou shalt nots' - state was separate from religion, like with Sparta and Athens.

We can close the book on Peterson.
Now he'll be an internet guru helping imbeciles deal with petty problems, using metaphors that impress and inspire their minds to fantasize.....
He'll be a placebo effect...the Peterson sugar-pill....Christianity for dunces.

The full debate....

Peterson is no genius, despite the complaisance of his grovelers and groupies, and the LAST thing he is is a philosopher. He is a reactionary political idealist and whatever intellectual honesty he had, which was rooted in collective trifles of sentimentality, gradually disappeared as he became drawn to his true calling, which was being popular.

Academics can only ever be onlookers of what nature conceals from them and guess what it is, using their pragmatically acquired sources of knowledge and wisdom. They will either become nihilists or God fearing souls, once they realize they lack the ability to see past what they know. They will fill their lacking, their weakness with an end point, God, the Singularity, AI, etc. They think in terms of methodologies, coping strategies, survivalism, techniques, that must act as figures in an equation leading to a solution. It is either God or the modern psychosis of freedom in nothingness. He has chosen God.

You can't be recognized by the masses without lowering yourself to their level, debasing your ideas or dumbing them down, placating, appeasing, etc, even if it is a conscious facade. Perhaps it was to him in the beginning, but now he has grown comfy wearing the sheepskin; unwilling to take it off. Cypher wanted to stay in the matrix for very specific reasons, that were rooted in fear and cowardice and delusion. He gave himself over to what was laying dormant inside of him all along, he embraced the inferiority of himself, rationally, gave it direction and a purpose. In this way, Peterson redeems his honesty. He has inverted his weakness, like most of his kind do, into a strength. He has consciously submitted to an inherent decrepitude within himself in order to fulfill his chosen path of the social oracle of the downtrodden and rejected. How else would he survive, without bleating, braying, lowing, as the herd animals do? The sound of a predator will frighten them and simultaneously mark the predator as an unwanted threat.

He was reared in the institution and reflects its ideals. His promotion of masculine spirit was only the catalyst he felt to rebel against the stifling elements of feminization. To come up for a little air. But now that the thrill is over, he is settling back into his real motivations and longings. His true Christian soul. His rise of popularity was merely a self-discovery for him as a weakling who was as lost as those he preaches to. This is why they love him. He is one of them. Their brethren. And in them he has found his identity.

I am a secular humanist, in the way Dillahunty defines it.
I do not believe we need god to be moral.
All social animals have a basic morality we humans can relate to, and they do not have a concept of a god.

But I also do not think that you can establish a system based on secular humanism.
Secular humanism needs an above average IQ, and a particular disposition.
The masses needs a supernatural threat and promise, to produce the supernatural will of self-control and self-repression....and still they fail.
Logic, reasoning, will not prevent them from unleashing their animal instincts, if there is no threat/promise of equal power.
To repress the natural you need something supremely powerful - the supernatural.

Dillahunty is naive if he thinks rational arguments, reasoning, logic, will quell the inner beast....because it worked for him.
I can empathize because I am also like that. I do not require a reason to behave kindly to what has done me no harm, or to rationalize why I ought not to kill, the annoying neighbour.
But nature does not work on rational arguments.
The entire sexual process is highly irrational.
In some species it is suicidal.
In humans it has its own madness...which makes it, for some, all the more powerful.

Rational explanations can be devastating to the average mind.
Confronted with mortality, disease, the unknown, the mind is desperate for an explanation, no matter how absurd.

Is Communism secular humanism?
Yes and no....
It has no God, but it has not eliminate the concept. It has replaced god with the state, or with the abstraction named 'humanity'.
A byproduct of judaism, Marxism adopts secular humanism to hide itself...as it did with Christianity, hiding in Hellenism, as it hides in Americanism as post-modernity.

Satyr wrote:

Dillahunty is naive if he thinks rational arguments, reasoning, logic, will quell the inner beast....because it worked for him.

Did reason quell his inner beast or is he just easily satisfied with the quality of modern provisions, fake and real.
Also, none of these faggots live without a social moral code imposed on them through society, it's just that it's so often repeated from multiple directions that it's accepted as self-evident, not even realising what is happening, "it's just normal".

Wasn't he somehow involved with the Atheism+ movement a couple of years ago, or (((Atheism)))?

William Blake wrote:

Those who restrain desire do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained.

This is another reason why looking to constantly improve quality instead of quantity is important.
If the Globo-Homo-Gayplex doesn't provide enough quality for you, you will want to break it.

The Ubermensch was Nietzsche's attempt at providing a goal, a direction, a meaning of the earth for a humanity without god. If meaning is not provided for us by an external supernatural entity, then meaning must be chosen by us consciously and pursued. In this case the overcoming of Man through the Superman.
The pronouncements of a supernatural entity are just as arbitrary and subjective as a human's. At some point you need to decide whether you're shepherding the masses or picking out an elevated few who can go further.
Secular Humanism reminds me of the same directionless altruism of christianity, but it has shed the unjustifiable supernatural references in deference to science. It's christianity, but updated to an empirical, atheistic age.

A Reply to Jordan Peterson
May 10, 2018
Kevin MacDonald
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I find Peterson's J-IQ post to be intellectually subpar (for him) but it also suggests to me that he is emotionally not completely enthralled with Jewish ethno-centrism. He is emotionally not motivated enough to come up with a more dishonest twisting of reality on an intellectual level.
It's more of a "Oh gawd, now that I broke the taboo for goyim to mention Jewish dominance I have to explain it away somehow and write this cheap clarification and damnation of bringing up the JQ."

The Peterson bubble is nearing the end of its cycle, s did the MGTOW movement.
He will have to come-up with a new trick to return the spotlight on him.
Plenty of young lost males, out there, hanging from his lips, desperate for a direction.
When you've been detached from nature, your inheritance has been slanders and negated as social construction, and you have no anchoring, you are a ship in the winds, with ripped sails, and no captain at the helm.
The Jews have their victim identity, their choseness; Negroes have their victim identity, as slaves; homosexuals have their social persecution victimhood;women have their identity as paternalism's victims.
What is left to European males?
A new victim identity, like MRA, or to become members of some internet cult, run by a bunch of morons, renaming Kabbalistic occultism, to hide their sources, or reinventing Marxism, or Christianity, under new monikers.
No family left.....and more importantly no father-figure worth shit.
What's left but rage?!
When eros is stifled anger is the only passion left - the dark horse in the platonic symbol for the human psyche.
A one horse chariot.
We see this every some often in the news about the latest school shootings - the rest living lives of 'quiet desperation'.

A dangerous affair.
Without control, and the eros/thymos balance, the chariot goes in circles and it eventually crashes.
This is the time for big decisions, for life affirming and life altering, actions.
This is a time for self-control, and directed passion; this is a time for a strong arm on the reigns.  
Berserker actions against herds of zombies, or bovines, pick your imagery, will result in the inevitable.
We need cleverness.
We need boys to become men, train their minds, and not only thir bodies, and then step-up, and grasp the reigns.
Not Achilles but Odysseus.
We need a trickster to turn the tables on these hypocrites, these word juggling liars.

Anfang wrote:

The current left does not ascribe to any coherent politics. The millennial generation (AKA sjws), have no political stance. They are simply a grotesque mutation of generations of liberal sheltering and mental weakness. They are stunted primitive animals who act on impulse. They have no comprehension of anything, other than what is immediatly threatening to their weaknesses, which they have rationalized into strengths. The PC negatives of race, gender or IQ, have become ingrained in their psychology, not as political contentions, but as mechanized behavioral defenses which act as a response system to what stimulates them.

Anyone with any marginal degree of intelligence knows to steer clear of rabid animals. Animals are animals and to be avoided and rejected, and anyone who does that today is considered to be some revolutionary. In these times, anyone who comes along, with some degree of reason or logic where it is nowhere to be found, is immediately accepted by those who are desperately searching for a voice of clarity among the rampant sickness of the animals. It’s an intellectual goldrush of capitalizing on anxieties and fears and frustrations; selling and marketing an image of reason as it comes off the assembly line of the institutions of indoctrination.

These liberal Judeo-Christian intellectuals, these sophistic academics, resonate more with the disenfranchised European, even though they are part of the same problem, and only because they have more sense in other facets of the problem that can be credited as worthwhile. These followers of these intellectuals, have a slightly above average intelligence to understand that their guru champions are not one of the rabid animals, but not enough to fathom the bigger picture of their reinforcement of the ideologies that created these animals in the first place.

All that is left now are the animals, and the ones who control them. All that is left is the choosing of lessor evils. It's post-Tsarist Russia all over, with every self-appointed leader, vying for mind control over the masses using the same ideologies. In this case, liberalism and capitalism, instead of communism/socialism.

White people audience, I know this and that and the other sucks in the current socio-political environment.
I understand you, I understand you are upset.
PC-culture has produced some obviously crazy effects.
I understand you, this and that and the other upsets you.

And here is what I humbly think, we have to start small, little by little....
And so, I think, humbly so, that it's a good thing if you clean your room.
We should all clean our rooms.
Remember, I understand your emotions and it's understandable that you are upset about those double standards.
We have to clean our rooms really hard and make them tidy, it's a good thing.
Also remember, be a proud, room cleaning individual and don't organise as a group.
That's the strength of our Western society, to not discriminate and to clean our rooms as happy individuals.

I think, humbly so, that everybody White or not has the right to become a shitlib.
But we will be better shitlibs, we will be shitlibs 2.0, we are the shitlibs who really don't discriminate.

Peterson wrote:

I think the political left has gone too far, and id like to know how and when so the reasonable left can make its ascendance again.

He has found his place and his true beliefs. Debating mainstream nigger civil right activists who quote celebrities and pontificate their 'slavery badge', and finding productive value in it because it is diverse and therefore intellectually rewarding. He prefers not being challenged and to rest easy with narrow-minded thinkers, a personality actor, a dumb nigger, and a feminist. When you have realized you are on par with the low, even if slightly superior than most of them, you go with it.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

YOU'RE JUST BEATING THEM AT THEIR GAME! DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
THAT MEANS YOU'RE NO BETTER THAN THEY ARE!
EXCEPT, OF COURSE, AT THEIR GAME. BUT, THEN YOU JUST VALIDATED THEIR GAME, SO WELL, CONGRATULATIONS I GUESS, BUT YOU BASICALLY PLAYED YOURSELF AND IN SOME REGARD YOU LET THEM WIN BY DOING THAT.

The only winning move is not to play! Stop fighting back, white man! There's nothing dangerous or violent at stake, like Communism or anything. It's just a game! If the enemy team cheats, you just forfeit the game while saying they cheated! Don't hurt the real game by cheating against cheaters, otherwise we all lose! So what if the possibility is death, everyone needs a fair shake at it! Soviet Russia wasn't real Bolshevism!

Peterson attempts to keep any resistance against degeneration frozen and paralyzed.

Slaughtz wrote:

[url=https://servimg.com/view/19267316/44]

Quote :

YOU'RE JUST BEATING THEM AT THEIR GAME! DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
THAT MEANS YOU'RE NO BETTER THAN THEY ARE!
EXCEPT, OF COURSE, AT THEIR GAME. BUT, THEN YOU JUST VALIDATED THEIR GAME, SO WELL, CONGRATULATIONS I GUESS, BUT YOU BASICALLY PLAYED YOURSELF AND IN SOME REGARD YOU LET THEM WIN BY DOING THAT.

The only winning move is not to play! Stop fighting back, white man! There's nothing dangerous or violent at stake, like Communism or anything. It's just a game! If the enemy team cheats, you just forfeit the game while saying they cheated! Don't hurt the real game by cheating against cheaters, otherwise we all lose! So what if the possibility is death, everyone needs a fair shake at it! Soviet Russia wasn't real Bolshevism!

Peterson attempts to keep any resistance against degeneration frozen and paralyzed.

When I read that quote, at first I thought it was about "conservatives" being more liberal than the J-leftist mob.
Out-liberaling the liberal.

But you see, what makes you like your enemy is using a spear and banding together when they use spears and band together. That's what makes you the same as your enemy. If you adopt your "enemy's" ideals and ideas and way of life but you add the I'm a hapless individualist routine to it then you are offering a true alternative.

Sorry, I shouldn't mislead, that was an impersonatory quotation. I should have known it'd be mistaken with the picture above it.

Reminds me of Trudeau though:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

No, it wasn't misleading.
It was immediately obvious after reading what you wrote under that quote.

Horseshoe theory justifications from "centrists", a.k.a. liberals, are so weak.
If your enemy wants to win then you better not want to win or you are just like those people you oppose.

It's so base psychology, like parents (usually mothers, I guess) trying to manipulate their children with a "Don't do this because it's what this other child is doing, you know, the one you don't like, or the one which is beyond the pale. And you wouldn't want to be like this, now would you?"