I'm proud of you, son. You managed to see through the Marxist

File: jbp.png (47KB, 986x424px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 986x424px

>>135391297
I love Peterson but he knows, deep down, that we have to go through the rebirth of the phoenix archetype to rescue the father from the underworld. You can feel his pain because he knows whats coming. People won't just sort themselves out.

>>135391723
So he's afraid the Alt-Right will seize power before sorting ourselves out?

>>135391297
He's good man. I'm watching his Biblical Series (right now III - God and the Hierarchy of Authority) and they are amazing

File: 1499752722248.jpg (188KB, 1048x1200px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1048x1200px

>>135392053
He's afraid we're literally too sorted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fInko6WL9No

File: 1496008167930.png (359KB, 457x675px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 457x675px

>>135392053
>>135391723
this begs the question of what it is we need to sort out. I don't believe ni that civnat bullshit, natsoc is definitely the way to go. There seems to be unavoidable suffering to this path though... thoughts?

>>135392174
yeh they are really good, i just finished the first flood one, 10/10

>>135392053
He's deathly afraid of young people becoming "too right", he mentions this often, he thinks this is an unspeakable thought crime, basically, and should be avoided in whatever way possible (which he's doing by brainwashing them into accepting an alternative, neutered way of thinking that leads nowhere).

>>135392355
In before [citation needed]: https://youtu.be/8PB4h59nZP4?t=1712

>>135392053
I think he thinks if you sort yourself you won't be far right any longer. Which I don't think is at all obvious, but that seems to be the conclusion to which he has come. It's been some time since I watched his video on a message to the alt right, but as I recall his main argument was essentially horseshoe theory. He advocated remembering that what we hate most about SJWs is their totalitarianism, their collectivism, and their labeling of us, and practically begged alt right members to not fall into the same traps.

But I couldn't disagree with him, more. I think that horseshoe theory is self evidently bullshit, although of course there are similarities between what the alt right does and what SJWs do because to some degree they have the same origin. It's like the alt right realized that the left was using identity politics to force their agenda, primarily through the politics of race, and then
the right decided they wouldn't leave those weapons only to their enemies.

Beyond which, to someone like Peterson it probably does appear obvious that a white ethnostate will never manage to be created from the starting conditions of our society as it exists now. In that case, advocating for one, or even attempting to build one, is a terrifying perspective that's more designed to get a lot of people killed than accomplish anything else.

>>135392194
>There seems to be unavoidable suffering to this path though
He sees the suffering as unnecessary still. We usually tend to view the consequence of inaction right now as possibly causing infinite unimaginable suffering in the future. What will humanity resemble if humanity consists of Africans? If Somalia had another 2000 years under their belt, could high civilization even be probable? Possible?
>>135392355
He doesn't dislike conservative young people, he's recognized the patterns in the social space that form right before an authoritarian force manifests itself.

>>135392535
>He doesn't dislike conservative young people, he's recognized the patterns in the social space that form right before an authoritarian force manifests itself.


I fucking wish. Fuck this Weimar Republic 2 Electric Boogaloo

>2017
>not sorting yourself out as we speak

Thank you, OP. I needed to hear that. I think I know what to do now.

File: 1459875883002.jpg (67KB, 640x460px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 640x460px

>>135392792
We all need to hear some motivational speech from time to time

>>135392180
If I were to describe the alt-right, "sorted" definitely wouldn't be the word I'd use. We're basically just a mess of conflicting political ideologies, conflicting religions, and various forms of purity spiraling. We can't even seem to reach a clear consensus on who's white and who's not.

>>135391723
>BASED Soul-Man.

>>135392355
>>135392535
Well, no, I've seen him make the same argument in a lot of videos where he says that politics is essentially an expression of one's personality type, and that multiple personality archetypes exist because no one of them alone can account for the entirety of the complexity necessary to run a society. Then he breaks it down into that the left scores higher on trait openness which makes them really good at innovating and being creative, but they score lower on trait conscientiousness which makes them terrible administrators who can't keep anything running. Then the right is basically an archetypal manifestation of the opposite, where they're great administrators, but can't innovate for shit.

So leaving aside for a moment that I think that's self evidently wrong, i.e. there are archetypal rightists who do manage to create, I think his big problem is one that highly intelligent people fall into far too often. He's in love with his own ideas. So it's like he's a personality psychologist so he sees every problem as being reflective of personality. There are plenty of explanations for why people hold different political opinions, but he's so convinced of his because that happens to be his field.

Which isn't to say that there's no data to prove he's right. Although I haven't seen the data, I would expect that a social scientist like him wouldn't make the claim without it, but as Jonathon Haidt is constantly trying to push, correlation does not imply causation, which is a mistake that I have seen Peterson make a number of times himself although he of all people ought not to. Suppose there's a high degree of correlation between personality and political outlook. Perhaps there's a third cause to both of those things, like for instance the degree to which one internalizes propaganda during childhood. Because political leaning is also highly correlated to things like what your parents' opinions were, your race, or most strongly your education level.

Peterson is comfy, but he is also a cuck. he doesn't take a truly objective position, because if he did he would realize /pol/ was right.

File: IMG_2160.jpg (97KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 640x640px

>>135391297
If it takes me 20 years day by day will i chip away at this fucking meme factory for ball sniffers and vagina divers

>>135392478
So he thinks we're going to become right-wing terrorists? Is he correct in saying that?

>>135391723
Youre all devil worshippers
>MUH SNAKE DADDY

>>135393018
>He's in love with his own ideas.
They're not even his, they're Jung's.

>>135392656
Well and that's something he talks about, too. He says that especially for feckless people without responsibility in their lives, all meaning is sapped away until only suffering remains, and that's a miserable way to be. And then it's like those people decide they would just rather the entire world blows up because their suffering is unbearable. So there are, probably a large number of, people who would celebrate the apocalypse.

But at the same time, I think the alt right would prefer another chaotic restructuring because they are not in power, and the extant cultural hegemony is one that is openly hostile toward their viewpoint. So they want a reordering that would better reflect their values and better position them in the dominance hierarchy. Whereas the left, which has power despite perpetually pretending to be victims, want chaos and destruction just out of mendacity and vindictiveness.

But then you should remember how much Peterson talks about authoritarians, and then you see it's quite obvious he thinks that people who want the chaos and the destruction are essentially always totalitarian, so even though I might analyze the alt right's motives as more pure, well what of the purist communists, for instance? They just want to try it again so they can be in charge, and then come the mass murders. So why would he think the alt right would be any different?

>>135393174
Well, they're Jung's, but they're his as well. Because that's sort of the point of the University archetype. As Newton said, "if I have seen farther, it is because I have stood upon the shoulders of giants." Human know ledge is iterative, cumulative, additive. He assimilates Jung, synthesizes it with a number of other thinkers, notably Solzhenitsyn, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, and then adds his own contributions. That's sort of what Maps of Meaning is, in a sense, but it's also what every lecture you've ever heard is. Fuck, it's what we're doing right now. We're synthesizing what we learned from Peterson with the rest of our own personal experiences (including wildly different educational backgrounds), then coming together as a group so that the collective ideas can act themselves out.

>jordan peterson has found a way to logically make the case that you're a nazi but it doesn't matter because you clean up your room and are on the path to become a good guy

File: 1489498400556.jpg (192KB, 1196x827px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1196x827px

>>135392968
>If I were to describe the alt-right, "sorted" definitely wouldn't be the word I'd use
I'm referring to what he believes the end result would produce. I'm looking for the video right at the moment but he describes pic related as over "orderly". I guess I see that as completely attempting to sort ourselves within the parameters of reality/nature. It's just exclusive by nature.
>>135393018
>Perhaps there's a third cause to both of those things
I think he acknowledges this, just not very openly. He acknowledges biological correlation with IQ and the importance of being high IQ. He does make the claim about low IQ people being able to be moral though, so I know he doesn't completely align with us on a personal basis, but I feel like a lot of his archetypal ideas are completely compatible with the basic underlying ropes of the splintered alt-right groups.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSo5v5t4OQM

>>135393139
Well, I think he thinks there's no way it doesn't end in death, violence, suffering, and so forth. For instance, one obvious prediction might be that if we did organize into let's say an anti-government militia, that the government would come and WACO our asses faster than you could say The Turner Diaries. But another obvious prediction might be that the street clashes like we saw in Berkeley will continue to escalate, and since they've already escalated to the point of permanent sever injury, the only next step up is murders.

But on the other hand, yes I think he thinks that if we did manage to take over and forge a far-right white ethnostate somewhere that it would necessarily be totalitarian also, and that would necessarily mean mass killings.

>>135393281
>why would he think the alt right would be any different?

because the right's views are more grounded in reality, which will most certainly lead to a happier more balanced world in the long run. IQ, culture, and dominance hierarchies are unavoidable realities of the world that create rifts within society. The sooner we recognize these aspects of humanity as real and significant, the sooner we can act on them and make a society more true to the real world.

If we destroy this old system and set up a new one based on race realism, traditionalism, and individualism (National Socialism) that harbors an environment that empowers every individual and theoretically makes a totalitarian govt impossible.

>>135393281
If the alt-right becomes totalitarian it'll more than likely just end up eating its own. As much as you'd like to talk about "fixing" western civilization by removing nonwhites and gassing degenerates, you'll probably be pretty shocked and confused when you find that you're the one headed towards the gas chamber.

File: earthbounddadsupport.jpg (25KB, 450x269px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 450x269px

>>135391297
t-thanks dad :'D

>>135393281
I read this in his voice.

>>135393653
It's more than that, though, because I think he understands his own weaknesses, one of them being his own vast intelligence. And the man is wickedly brilliant. But intelligence does tend to manifest as arrogance, or narcissism, because being smarter than everyone else will make you look down on them even as they begin to look up to you.

But he's as human as anyone else, despite seeming to be in a constant quest for self sorting, and he fails sometimes.

Which isn't at all to say that Jungian-Petersonian personality analysis is necessarily incompatible with a political ideology (notwithstanding that he explicitly says he thinks all ideologies are bad). But neither do I think his full analysis could ever support white ethnic nationalism, or related ideas.

File: 50 Point Plan.png (240KB, 1280x1964px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1280x1964px

>>135393657
The idea isn't to start a Turner-esque fighting force. It's to keep exposing our ideas to the European public and naturally, over time with interaction with undesirable people/multiculturalism, they'll demand our policies take place. We can make the ethnostate manifest after 100 years.
This overnight meme needs to die and is holding us back.

>>135392478
>I think that horseshoe theory is self evidently bullshit
I don't think that's quite right. The main issue is that people believe radicalism is a sign of purity of ideology, so to speak. People on the far-right or far-left are more likely to be radicals, as radicals are more likely to cling to extreme beliefs, but what makes the far-right and far-left similar isn't the 'right' and 'left' aspect of that, it's the 'radicalism' aspect.

That is, the far-right and far-left are commonly seen as similar since their most extreme and vocal supporters believe that the end justify the means, that any sort of atrocity or censorship is justified to reach their goal. In this sense it's easy to see similarities, and if you're interacting with someone who's more 'radical' than he's right or left, then it doesn't matter that much whether he's right or left at all as long as he considers you to be your enemy.

People still don't understand what right/left actually means.

>>135394012
That along with the huge difference between white liberal and white conservative fertility rates and the fact that political orientation is largely heritable will definitely help.

>>135393966
>his full analysis could ever support white ethnic nationalism, or related ideas.
Wouldn't completely sorting ourselves out as human beings be the strife to create the Ubermensch? To eliminate most suffering through soft eugenics wherever possible? It's hard for me to empathize with inaction when it will undoubtedly lead to chaos.

>>135394012
Exactly, we need to push for peaceful political solutions while we still can. Civil war is absolute last resort and I don't think it should be something to promote or fantasize about. We can do this without costing any human life if we're smart about it.

File: 1499222811834.jpg (93KB, 655x662px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 655x662px

>>135394012
>We can make the ethnostate manifest after 100 years.

By then (((they))) will have bred us out of existence through social marxism. They control the means to pass legislation and will not allow such "backtracking" on their policies. That only leaves us one option: armed, strategic, covert revolution. The real meme that needs to die is that they can track us anywhere. More effort needs to be made towards irl meetups and off-grid planning.

>>135393710
But see, the communists said essentially the exact same thing. The early Marxists were so convinced of the correctness of their own beliefs that they called dialectical materialism science, and branded anyone with objections as science deniers. It's a very modernist ideology. Meanwhile for all the evidence of race realism that /pol/ has, which I happen to find quite convincing, it is undeniable that this is not the prevalent accepted opinion of contemporary scientists in the applicable fields. So then it's like why should we think that our approach actually is any more based in reality than the communist approach was, aside from our own personal biases?

Worse, the alt right seems to have a streak of utopianism about it, and that truly is one of the best right wing criticisms of the left. Men are flawed by nature. No hammering them with social coercion will ever make them into angels. Therefore no society will ever be angelic. We should not fall into that trap. If England, let's say, was ethnically cleansed of everyone who wasn't purely English as might be established by some DNA test, let's say, there would still be crime, conflict, and people making one another suffer.

So then you think, well there's obvious problems with our society as it exists, and you're right. But your solution is to just trash the whole thing, and you're not right. Because if it has worked heretofore, then it necessarily must have got something right, which incidentally is the main idea of classical conservatism. Scrap that and replace it with something based on essentially your own personal philosophy and you can be sure that you're going to fuck things up just as bad as Mao Tse Tung did, and for the exact same reasons.

File: 1489683919567.jpg (201KB, 857x1202px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 857x1202px

>>135391297
>discover jbp 4 months ago
>watch MoM, get psychologically and philosophically slapped over the course of 40 hours of lectures
>gave up the ganja
>gave up tobacco
>started exercising 3 times/week
>started socializing again
>started sorting out my uni courses that I had abandoned for 3 years
>currently doing the self authoring exercise and looking to fit even more productive activities in my schedule
Life has never looked brighter. Thank you professor, you helped me save what I have left of my young years and for the first time I'm looking forward for the future.

>>135394397
No dude, communists literally want a global utopia. We just want some clay to call our own or for the Euros to remove invaders.

File: 1488909295279.jpg (226KB, 1024x995px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1024x995px

>>135394285
IF it's possible to achieve these types of policies with the declining demographics of the US. There's also the very real possibility becoming dysphoria jew like, perpetually stuck at the top of social stratas in nations all over the world if they become the minorities. This is entire other hell we have to avoid. Reversing the demographic trends are going to have to be more assertive than closing the border and deporting illegal aliens.

>>135393774
So that's a very real possibility, but then you have to look at the history of revolutions (which I have) and what you start to see is that your analysis mostly doesn't fit. Oh, it's a very accurate model for what happens to radical muslims, for instance. They gain successes, which gets them followers, which gets them attention from the governments they attack, which gets them losses, which makes them point blame, which makes them point blame at each other, so they enter a purity spiral, and finally they kill each other for not being devout enough which is their explanation for the losses.

But for most revolutions, or at least the successful ones anyway, your value to the revolution is related to your effectiveness as a fighter. Read Yuri Bezmenov on the matter. You want the revolutionaries to be good revolutionaries. Of course, after the revolution those guys had better watch out, as for instance Ernst Rohm found out. But even that's avoidable by proving greater value to the normalization of the new government.

File: ford drinking.gif (2MB, 290x150px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 290x150px

>>135393018
>So leaving aside for a moment that I think that's self evidently wrong, i.e. there are archetypal rightists who do manage to create, I think his big problem is one that highly intelligent people fall into far too often. He's in love with his own ideas. So it's like he's a personality psychologist so he sees every problem as being reflective of personality. There are plenty of explanations for why people hold different political opinions, but he's so convinced of his because that happens to be his field.


This is the problem people run into when they don't actually engage the field but instead picking up a single person's work.

None of that shit is his idea. He basically combines Jung with modern "big 5" personality assessments and research into what correlates with political views. Then he draws his own conclusions which aren't necessarily what other people draw.


The person who isn't familiar with the field sees one person conjuring shit out of nowhere.

Here is the "data" you haven't seen explained.
> Because political leaning is also highly correlated to things like what your parents' opinions were, your race, or most strongly your education level.

Try this, your personality is probably influenced by all of those things. The claim that personality is linked to politics is simple.
>personality is determined by multiple choice test.
>on average those who self identify as left chose new experiences over everything.
>on average those who self identify as right leaning people chose order over everything.

Then we get personal opinion,
"choosing openness isn't always best, choosing order isn't always best, its about society interacting meaningfully for balance".

We aren't looking at causes. We aren't claiming causes.

File: 1400.jpg (90KB, 667x560px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 667x560px

>>135394397
>So then it's like why should we think that our approach actually is any more based in reality than the communist approach was, aside from our own personal biases?
To literally protect our families

>>135394012
We don't have 100 years.

We don't even have 30-40 years now, we're going to be minorities in many of our countries before 2050.

>>135394549
By that time I don't think the country could be held together even if you wanted it to.

File: C7Uwp0YXkAE1-kT[1].jpg (112KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1200x800px

>>135393867
I wrote it in his voice, eh? Because I'm acting out the Jordan B. Peterson archetype to sort myself, bucko.

File: 1500159195543.jpg (524KB, 1774x1602px) Image search: [Google]

524KB, 1774x1602px

>>135394397
>Worse, the alt right seems to have a streak of utopianism about it, and that truly is one of the best right wing criticisms of the left. Men are flawed by nature
Of course there's an ideal to strive for, but acknowledgement of our own predilections/predispositions is literally the National Socialist ideology.

(video below when you have time)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9oUqIcX-c
>your own personal philosophy
Absolutely not, it's exclusive, but not personal

>>135392194
My take on it was that he meant going through all minute aspects of our individual lives and doing all the little things that had been put off for later. In the sorting process, later is now.

With regard to the larger society the current trend of demographics requires action. Molyneux has argued that destruction of the Federal Reserve and the end of the welfare state might substantially change the demographics because poorer immigrants would simply leave. I think that view is wishful thinking. Cutting off the gibs would trigger riots which would result in urban anarchy. There is going to be suffering no matter how things are resolved.

File: 1496574001260.jpg (366KB, 1080x1255px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 1080x1255px

>>135394397
Thank you. It's rare to meet such a well-spoken person on this website. You seem to have a good understanding of the subject and your posts are insightful. That's all. What surprises me is that you're this fast and typing all this stuff.

>>135394679
Like I said before. We need to start making more /pol/ meetup threads (on /soc/ if necessary) talk out our solutions in person with one another and basically meme irl.

Just think about how Hitler rose to power (like the actual physical actions he took) and do that.

He has succeeded. I finally understand

>>135393774
"If you form an ethnostate you'll end up gassing each other!"

Kikes love this line

File: suicide pepe.jpg (9KB, 267x181px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 267x181px

>when you dont have the attention span for his lectures

File: Sorted himself out.png (1MB, 1668x932px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1668x932px

>>135395155
sort yourself out nigger

>>135395013
Isn't it a possibility, though? Not necessarily gassing each other for being 'not white enough', but if you've paid any attention to the alt-right as a whole, then you already know that the different communities are at each other's throats for being not 'pure' enough or being shills, since they're afraid their own community might get subverted or destroyed. What makes you think all these people with different opinions would suddenly be able to work as a consistent whole?

>>135394012
Well you're right in a way, but you're wrong in a way. Because I've actually started to become very self educated in what the process of changing peoples' minds is truly like, and the sad fact is that it doesn't seem that anyone knows. Although a lot of people are suddenly working on the problem, notably climate scientists who are perplexed that something that seems to obvious to them is thoroughly unconvincing of everyone else.

So a good example might be how every time there's a muslim terror attack there's an upspike in converts to their religion. Which is such a fucking perverse thing to think about, because it's like why the fuck would you join the people trying to kill you. But what seems to be going on is that lefties are so convinced of the #notallmuslims meme that they decide to show the world they know islam better than the violent muslims do by converting. And then the muslims point to that as the work of fucking allah, because why the hell else would anyone do something so nutty. I've had muslims rub that in my face (after *I* told it to them) as proof for why I'm wrong about things.

But something else happens, too. Even more people turn to the far right after every islamic attack.

So then what happens when that system achieves saturation? For instance, right now everyone in the United States has an opinion on abortion, and nobody's changing anyone else's mind. But when you get that same situation with islamic terror, and half your population is violently in favor of islam, and the other half is violently opposed, what happens next? You think it obvious that the sort of late comer white nationalists will win, but I think the only thing that's obvious is that it will bring rivers of blood.

File: 1488037147787.jpg (134KB, 750x914px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 750x914px

>>135394895
>(like the actual physical actions he took)
If you go do some stupid Dylan Roof shit, you're going to fuck it up for everyone else. Quit talking this shit and just meet up with some guys to discuss politics.

>>135391297
thanks, dad.

>>135395362
Dude, I'm just being funny when I say Irish aren't white

File: 1501134140376.jpg (117KB, 663x678px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 663x678px

>>135395374
>every time there's a muslim terror attack there's an upspike in converts to their religion
sauce?
>I've had muslims rub that in my face (after *I* told it to them) as proof for why I'm wrong about things.
wew lad that perpetual cycle though. Absolutely insane.
>but I think the only thing that's obvious is that it will bring rivers of blood.
WN are going to be the only people offering a solution to the inevitable rivers of blood. The only question is, how much blood will have to be spilled to reset it? It's going to be increasingly worse as time goes on if action becomes necessary.

File: 1485897620443.jpg (105KB, 900x500px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 900x500px

>>135395362
>What makes you think all these people with different opinions would suddenly be able to work as a consistent whole?
2016

>>135394240
I think it's obvious that most people have essentially zero understanding of the alt right, and that's been the case since they got on anyone's radar. Most people, I think, merely view them as the worst stereotype of a neo-nazi and that's it. So they have no idea what people on the alt right believe, so then how the hell do they know if they're radical or what? So then to say that they're radical the way the people on the far left are is really more a reflection of the speaker's own stereotypes than it is a reflection of reality.

Maybe you're right about the left-right political spectrum, although I would point to history and say it's really a lasting element of the French revolution. But Peterson addresses this too, when he discusses SJWs. Because if you ever talk to an SJW about social justice, what you'll find is that they don't have the first damn clue what they're talking about. They believe it like hell, but they don't understand it. But that's not entirely true, because they do have some understanding. Like, maybe they get 10% of the whole ideology. But then they meet up with another SJW who also knows 10%. And maybe they have a lot of overlap, but they're not exactly the same. So they might share 8% of knowledge of the whole ideology in common, but each brings 2% the other doesn't, giving us 12% overall. Well, you gather enough of them together, and then they can collectively piece together the entire ideology which then acts itself out, and so that's what we see with the Berkeley bike lock attack.

But maybe it's the same with left-right. Maybe we don't need to understand it, if we're just in big enough groups. And maybe that's what politics truly is.

File: 1499998615525.jpg (47KB, 600x671px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 600x671px

>>135392194
>natsoc
You have to be absolutely fucking retarded to think socialism works at all. You fucking kike cock sucking piece of shit. HURR DURR, BIG GUBMENT WERKS IF ITS MADE OF WYYYE PEEPOL. Please, fuck off and read you Keynesian subhuman.

>>135394286
Well I don't think Peterson would ever advocate inaction. I think he's quite vocal that inaction has consequences exactly like action does. But I also think the notion of one dominant political archetype is directly anathema to Peterson's broader analysis.

>>135395585
The real issue we need to be afraid of is infights because of ideological purity, rather than the "let's gas everyone who isn't 100% pure bavarian phenotype" meme.

>>135395749
Good luck with that lad.

>>135395697
tl;dr on that picture?

File: sadfrog lying awake at night.jpg (29KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 640x360px

>>135395268

i cant i dont have the attention span

>>135394520
I'm sympathetic, I truly am. But the ideology is deeply flawed, I think, if only because it hasn't been fully thought through. And if you want to maintain commitment to it, you had better figure out the obvious criticisms that you will inevitably face and come up with answers to them.

File: 1489181917746m.jpg (116KB, 1024x707px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1024x707px

>>135395784
You know that this was posted by a nigger when he doesn't understand the difference between national socialism and socialism.If your retarded nigger ass took some time and read the NSDAP program you would realize how idiotic you sound

He has the manic qualities of a meth hobo mixed with a large IQ and a history of psychedelics resulting in thinking he's onto IT in such a strong way that he feels now compelled to let everyone know what IT is, and come to find out IT is a Joseph Campbell Cult.

>>135394659
You're claiming that you can analyze personality through factor analysis and word association. That's a pretty broad claim.

Anyway, I fully realize that #1 this isn't my field (my field is history) and #2 Peterson is synthesizing the ideas of others. I think if you read my other posts you'll see I already admit as much.

However, Peterson's position on personality and politics is not in dispute, nor is his commitment to his position.

File: 1487627083955.jpg (468KB, 1184x1046px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 1184x1046px

>>135396017
>figure out the obvious criticisms that you will inevitably face and come up with answers to them.
Will do, working on it everyday. Thanks for stopping by
>>135395917
>tl;dr on that picture?
A polish mudshark that posted a video about being a single mother. Went viral a week ago or so, ask around about it, there's so grade A may mays out there about it.

>>135394673
Again, I'm sympathetic. But emotional response to external threats isn't the best way to judge rationality.

>>135394679
I think Dr. Peterson addresses this, too. He says if we don't take the gains of "conservatism" over the past year or so and find a permanent fix this time, we won't get another chance in 30 or so years to wait for the political pendulum to shift back. Society will be broken by the authoritarian left forever.

>>135394289
I think the easiest thing to push for is revealing all political connections to the public. Constant non-stop information revealing politicians as the puppets they are. Constantly highlighting the puppeteer's hands, to the point where the show is an obvious farce.

>>135395992
Keep trying.

File: 1494533931497.png (155KB, 1364x1052px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1364x1052px

>>135395784
Natsoc is the most practical ideology for combating (((them))) and reversing our decline

>>135395749
They might be able to work together, but there's no guarantee they won't end up betraying each other in the end. Like we've said, the infighting within the alt-right is already insane and it's still just a tiny movement.

>>135394840
So you bring up something interesting. Posting George Lincoln Rockwell is destined to make others dismiss you immediately. However, they would dismiss all of us immediately for just talking about these ideas. So then we must ask if we should turn to Rockwell and embrace the stigma? Because that doesn't seem to have worked for anyone ever in the past.

File: Black Per Capita Homicide rates 2015.png (271KB, 1023x653px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1023x653px

>>135396291
>But emotional response to external threats isn't the best way to judge rationality.
That's a pretty bold claim to propose we're prue emotional reactionaries. I don't know if you're tracking the situation in SA at the moment, but I'd like to avoid that fate for my grandchildren and nation. To propose that the trends we're witnessing will just magically evaporate when the European population widdles, will prove to be a fatal misjudgement.
It's assess the data we have at the moment to attempt to predict trends, or literally gamble the future of the west off of optimism.

>>135394847
Kind of you to say. I suppose this is the product of an education in the humanities. On the other hand, perhaps I am not as quick as you think.

>>135391297

So to confirm it is exclusively beta losers who love this guy right?

>>135395374
The reason why some people today join islam is because they go by the rule "if you can't beat them, join them". And it's funny, because this is just history repeating itself. If I remember correctly, in early islam times when Mohamed was still alive, he managed to take over a city by convincing the local elites to conspire with him against the majority population. And it's the same thing that is happening in Europe right now.

>>135391297

thank

>>135396631

Sounds like you don't so no.

File: 1486532219985.png (624KB, 824x571px) Image search: [Google]

624KB, 824x571px

>>135396533
>So then we must ask if we should turn to Rockwell and embrace the stigma?
Not in the sense of the visceral or vulgar aspects, but in the confidence aspect. The only reason I would ever show anyone GLR is if they were already open or curious about the idea. It'd be counterproductive if I showed it to 90% of people. Now, Jared Taylor is much more accessible to the Average American and is a good representative to attract the target demographic. We don't want (((neonazis))) and thugs, we want decent people who just care about community, family, and nation.

>>135395362
Yes, you're right. But it's far worse than that. Because I promise you there are infiltrators who are also attempting to subvert the group. We see them all the time on /pol/, and call them out as shills. They love that, because that lets them accuse genuine users of being shills, and that just divides the group even more.

So it's like, is the solution to division to embrace one another and not turn on each other? Because that also means to embrace the shills. One common tactic they employ is to be actual Nazis, who advocate actual violence, because they know that can undermine any movement.

I don't think we have figured out a great answer to this yet. I thought the alt right's came the closest I have ever seen, and it nearly worked. But not quite.

>>135395771
For a long time I believed that separating politics into right-wing and left-wing is completely absurd bullshit, but I eventually figured out what I believe is the fundamental difference between any left and any right ideology. This includes political believes such as libertarianism and nationalism which, on the first glance, don't seem to have much in common.

The main difference between right-wing thinking and left-wing thinking is that the right focuses on success, power, accomplishments and heroes, while the left focuses on failures, the oppressed, those that are unable to stand up and fight. Roughly speaking, of course.

You can think of it this way: Conservativism aims to preserve the accomplisments of the past. Libertarianism aims to give each individuum the freedom to achieve something and forge his own path. Nationalism aims to preseve the nation, which is seen as something extremely valuable. In this sense they're all similar in that they're something 'good' that needs to be preserved, or an archetypical hero you need to look up to, someone you can aspire to.

The left-wing is different: Communism aims to attack the failures of capitalism and help the working class. SJWism is exactly the same, but since students don't identify as members of the 'working class' the whole focus shifted to the power struggle between races and genders. Any sort of left-wing nanny state stuff aims to help the people that can't do it on their own. You see similar patterns all over the place. For example, the 'right wing' look at animals is that we're better than animals since we can think. The left wing view is that we're similar, since they can feel, and that they deserve to be protected since they're weaker.

I think it's a pattern you see all over the place once you developed a feeling for it, and since I discovered it both right and left seem to be important on some level, as long as it's balanced. The right is the father, so to speak, the left the mother.

>>135396850
Isn't the Daily Stormer one of the most popular "far-right" websites out there? I take it that's probably not a good thing.

>>135392968
>alt-right
>white

Where were you during HWNDU?

>>135396871
The sad thing is the shills are usually successful in converting people to unironic extremism by pretending to be extremists. And then you have the crazies like Varg who are just like that anyway.

>>135395697
>sauce?
I think I read that in Dabiq magazine.

>wew lad that perpetual cycle though. Absolutely insane.
I keep experiencing it now. I think it means I am becoming influential.

>WN are going to be the only people offering a solution to the inevitable rivers of blood.
I think you underestimate the normie's deep desire for peace and safety. They're not going to do what puts them at risk. And they're programmed to believe the response is what puts them at risk, not the original violence. Consider a kid who fights back against a schoolyard bully. He gets punished for fighting. Consider the advice given to muggers. Just give the criminal what they want, violence only makes matters worse. They're not going to respond the way you expect.

>>135395374
you are slaying this thread. is this even your final form? 10/10

>>135397188
Actually, I guess Varg isn't an extremist, but he still seems to be trying everything in his power to intentionally divide the movement and cause more infighting.

>>135394496
>Life has never looked brighter. Thank you professor, you helped me save what I have left of my young years and for the first time I'm looking forward for the future.
Wonderful post, anon, thanks for sharing

This whole thread is pretty interesting desu. Surprised /pol/ can be this civil honestly but I am glad nonetheless.

Peterson is a great self-help coach, but politically he's a Jew-enabler.

>>135396735
Yes, I'm sure that's part of it, too. But I think the main of it is sheeple refusing to believe the evidence that contradicts their ideology.

>>135396433
I have to agree. Once (((they))) are gone, then we can hammer-out a better society.

File: JBP-Heroic.jpg (56KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 480x360px

>>135391723
I concur...

>>135397496

There are studies out there showing that people who strongly believe things believe them even harder when presented with conflicting evidence.

>>135391297
Bump. Iron pill and white pill trump black pill.

>>135391723

You can see it when hes done making a passionate point and then his shoulders sag like the weight of the world is on them.

>>135393018
Excellent post

>>135396871
No one denies that there are shills and infiltrators, and that is a massive issue. But the way I see it, and this is something Jordan Peterson actually addresses with his lectures, is that you CAN'T work your way through political stuff unless you've sorted yourself out.

The main issue with shilling and infiltration is that you can't figure out who's saying something for which reason, since this is the internet, especially on this website here. Since you can't separate 'honest' people from liars, the ONLY thing you can do is look at what they're saying and take it apart to understand it, and if you fully understand what they're saying, then you can either crush them in a debate and show other people why it's bullshit, or agree with and learn from them.

tl;dr Reason. If your reasoning is based on logic rather than association what shills say is hardly going to influence you. You need to know where you stand, though. The whole idea is a bit too idealistic, though, not enough to solve the whole issue, but promoting reason is a first step to get somewhere.

File: 4557591.jpg (69KB, 520x678px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 520x678px

>>135391297
> Jordan Peterson thinks we are being ironic with our beliefs just to spite the left

>>135397106
That's another thing. There's such a large concentration of patriotic mutts in the US that I highly doubt full-blown white nationalism will ever take off here. Look at some prominent American "white" nationalist internet figures. EdgySphinx: 1/2 Arab. Brittany Venti: 1/4 black. Mike Enoch: "accidentally" married a Jew. Jihadi Jesus and Indian Naruto from HWNDU. The whole thing just gets really confusing really fast.

File: Uniform.jpg (279KB, 1312x875px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 1312x875px

>>135396929
>The main difference between right-wing thinking and left-wing thinking is that the right focuses on success, power, accomplishments and heroes, while the left focuses on failures, the oppressed, those that are unable to stand up and fight.
pic related

>>135397199
>Consider the advice given to muggers
Resentment will exist for the allowance of the ability of muggers freedom to maneuver and operate. They'll crave for the destruction of the mugger, even if they only want other people to act. We don't need everyone to act, just need the support of the people.

Also to answer earlier in regards to adopting the uniformity, aesthetic, and style of GLR for the current situation.
If everyone carries themselves as a successful, attractive, and desirable person, the natural charisma will do wonders as opposed to the ominous uniforms of fascist ideology. If you look like the target demographic and expose our views, it should create social tension between sectarian lines. If the paranoia and mistrust exists against Europeans who are successful, we can control the social pressure. A non-violent Zarqawin approach if it makes sense based on appearance.

File: TK.png (152KB, 1200x1620px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1200x1620px

>>135396929
Whoops, sorry
see pic related

File: 1466383260758.png (12KB, 314x363px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 314x363px

>>135397908
There was a guy in a thread the other day who said he was a white nationalist but he was working with leftypol to shut down Lauren Southern. His reasoning was that the white nationalist movement has no place for female speakers and that she needs to be silenced by any means necessary, even though she's immensely popular. I was actually slamming my head on my desk reading his posts.

Bottom line is it's pretty hard to reason with people who are legitimately insane or stupid.

>>135398046
We are the suave guy at the bar who'll joke about rape whilst spiking your drink

>>135392968
>If I were to describe the alt-right, "sorted" definitely wouldn't be the word I'd use. We're basically just a mess of conflicting political ideologies, conflicting religions, and various forms of purity spiraling.
That's because the notion is a buzzword invented by the media to label anyone with non-leftist views.
Yes there were people who tried to use this word before but the current meaning was defined by the left.
We shouldn't even use this word unironically because it's useless for us.

>>135396929
That's an interesting interpretation, but I think it's a low resolution one. Because once you start to break it down at the individual level, I think you'll find that of course rightists feel, as for instance there's one anon in this thread who says he's primarily motivated by a desire to protect his family from what he views as impending disaster. Simultaneously, it's not right to say that leftists don't think. Many of them are quite obviously intelligent. (Although not many SJWs are).

I think the reality of political dynamics is that they are constantly changing in response to changing circumstances and people. I think generally looking for a broadly unifying principle in any of them may be an ultimately futile effort, although I hate to sound so postmodern about it.

>>135397188
I think another thing to consider is that people change over time. Just as someone might be converted to extremism, so to speak, that means they once were not, and then they were. I think they can just as easily go back, or vacillate back and forth.

>>135397213
Thank you, but no. I haven't even released my Bankai.

>>135392968
I think you're a manifestation of tribal instincts.

>>135394895
>Just think about how Hitler rose to power (like the actual physical actions he took) and do that.
Read Rules for Radicals first and go from there. A wholly new plan of action must be devised. We're not living in the (((Weimar Republic))).

Something like starting local businesses and doing charity work for whites in need would be good. Promoting classical art, etc. We don't need the SA marching in the street starting fights with commies.

Communists are by definition terrorist, fascists must exist in order to secure the peace. (((Skinheads))) and their ilk are useful in a time of major crisis, which will come eventually, but the time is not now.

>>135397607
Oh yes. If you read Robert Cialdini, for instance, he's quite explicit on that point. Notably, he has looked at doomsday cults that make a prediction for the end of the world. Well the appointed time comes, and the world doesn't end, and then they people generally decide the reason it didn't was because they were not sufficiently faithful, and they had better increase their efforts. But something else happens, too. The first wave generally keeps the knowledge of the end as secret that only the initiated can learn after they pay the price of elite membership. But after the disaster doesn't come, they tend to not only believe harder, but they proselytize. They try to bring in more converts. However, inevitably their new end date doesn't work out either. So there will of course always be some die hards, but after failing time and time again, eventually people give up and walk away.

>>135397741
I'm glad you like it.

>>135399170
For Christ's sake, just post a timestamp already, doc.

>>135397908
I think there's a lot of merit to what you say, but I conceptualize it a little bit differently.

When I think of shills, I generally think about right wing militias in the United States as were popular in the 1990s. Every damn one was infiltrated by the FBI, whose agents were trained and educated on being provocateurs. Then the agents would convince the membership to be more extreme because they were better equipped to do that sort of convincing, and then of course they would bust the militias and send people to prison. Which is precisely why there aren't really any right wing militias in America any more. They couldn't solve the shill problem.

So I kind of think being firmly grounded in reason and evidence isn't enough, when cousin Cletus is going to be convinced by Agent Smith pretending to be just a pissed off war vet who read the Turner Diaries, even if you explain with better logic and evidence why Smith is full of shit.

>>135398578
>it's not right to say that leftists don't think. Many of them are quite obviously intelligent
They tend to think a lot of course and most prominent leftists are intellectuals, nobody will deny it. The academia was taken by the left, Gramsci-style since the WW2.
The problem with leftists is how they can ignore huge chunk of reality in their thought process. Like how Sartre was denying the attrocities of the USSR. Or how the left refuses to even consider the inferiority of average nigger intelligence. The left will acknowledge that niggers have problems but since they can't blame it on niggers they will blame it on the whitey so they arrive at false conclusion and start bullshit like affirmative action which, in the long run, makes the negro even more miserable.
This clearly is an advanced thought process, you have to make a lot of mental gymnastics to fool yourself like this. The problem is that it's not rational thinking and irrantional thinking is even more dangerous than not thinking at all.
There's some irrational thinking among the right too of course, especially with the religious nuts. But this is mainly present among the lowest of right wingers and not among the elites.

>>135398046
Well but some of us are.

But some of us are not, and I think he realizes that, too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fInko6WL9No

>>135398501

> I was actually slamming my head on my desk reading his posts.

Did you know that Nation of Islam and American Nazi Party had a pretty stable working relationship?

>>135398111
And you know what else? The white nationalists tend to love those people.

>>135398157
So what do you do with the ugly?

File: dragon of chaos.png (2MB, 1563x1086px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1563x1086px

FUCKING DIE MARXIST SCUM!

>>135398501
My suspicion, although I don't know how to prove it, is that's motivated by someone with a personal grudge and access to an army of trolls.

File: 1400647612175.jpg (267KB, 960x1280px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 960x1280px

>>135399303
Not happening.

>>135391297
adolf wouldnt like trump but he would do relational reasoning with peterson. they both see postmodern pizzas, raping the shit out of you with the salami ..they dont see neocons like nancy reagan or hillary-trump dualism fucking you up with chllingeffects

>people think natsoc will work
It's demonised purely by name. We can have fascism but you losers have got to stop worshipping Hitler. The important part is the 14 words, the 88 ruins everything

File: 1487548811301.jpg (49KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 600x600px

>>135399303
>just post a timestamp already, doc.
kek, fuck no that's a bad idea

>>135399759
It's solely to do with being palatable to the general public. These would be the people making public appearances and speeches. There's a group called Identity Evropa at the moment that is doing exactly this, I believe. There's a vetting process of some sorts and appearance expectations. Think of this hypothetical group of people like the SA on a public face, I haven't devolved into wanting to "gass" ugly people. kek

>>135399534
Well it's worse than that. Noam Chomsky originally denied the Khmer Rouge genocide, for instance. Then when he couldn't deny it, he suggested that it was actually good because by killing a few counterrevolutionaries the communists saved more lives from capitalist aggression. When the extent of atrocity became obvious to even him he just shut up about it for a while.

Then do you want to know what he did?

He said the whole thing was actually an American plot to spread capitalist imperialism around the world.

>>135399610
Did you know that both groups were funded by KGB?

>>135398157
>pic related
I'm not familiar with it. tl;dr?

>>135398235
Ted is surprisingly smart. There's quite a bit of his stuff I don't agree with and all, but his stuff about leftism is really intriguing. In fact, George Orwell once said somewhat similar thinks about corruption of 'pure' socialist movements.

>>135398578
I don't believe you quite got my main point. I don't believe there's a relevant difference of thinking/feeling here, if you're taking in account the left or right wing as a whole, even though I believe that they 'feel' in different ways. The main difference comes down to looking at the same situation in different ways.

The left-wing focuses on the 'bad' aspect and believes that it's an indication the system is flawed and needs to be fixed. The right-wing looks at the 'good' aspect and thinks of it as an indication the system is working and needs to be preserved. Roughly speaking, of course.

For example, if the right-wing sees issues with the system they generally believe that it's since people didn't uphold the right values, or in case of poverty, that it's the individual responsibility to stand up and solve your own damn issues, rather than society solving them for you.

It's a bit difficult to put in simple terms, in my opinion.

>>135391297
ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

>>135400143

Oooh big spooky KGB, finger in every pie. yes goiym every nationalist movenent is a front for the KGB. Did you learn that from Le Based Subversion Man videos, right? What a fucking joke.

>>135391297
;_;

>>135400115
Well, no really though. What do you do with people who are very unattractive? Are they excluded? And what about the people who do seem to be agents provocateurs?

So for instance, there's Gavin McInnes' Proud Boys. They are as obsessed with Nazis as SJWs are. Any time one of them disagrees with another, they start accusing each other of being closet Nazis and they try to fight.

So that's sort of the problem. On the one hand, you have infiltrators and they're a real problem. But on the other hand, any way to solve the problem actually makes it worse.

>>135393098
Is he channeling his feminine energies?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di7NMssrqsE

>>135399826
Ezra Levant

>>135400228
No, you're right. I didn't really address that part of what you said. I have made similar arguments in the past.

For instance, one interpretation that has occurred to me is that leftists tend to be collectivists, while rightists tend to be individualists. So often when someone does something bad, a criminal let's say, the rightists tend want to blame the individual for making bad choices. The leftists tend to want to look for systemic causes that forced him to have no alternative but bad choices. Alternatively, the same applies with things that are good. So when someone is wealthy and successful, the rightists tend to say he earned that through hard work, talent, and self sacrifice. But the leftists tend to say that you didn't earn that, and they want to take from you to give to others (really to cement their own power), and that's if they don't decide that the only reason you became successful in the first place is because you stole from or exploited someone else, which is the conclusion to which they sometimes come!

But while I like my opinion, and I agree with yours, I also think there's a meta at play here when we're both sort of looking for a unifying principle to that which may not have one. Which is, I think, quite a European thing to do. That's sort of the essence of classical philosophy to a great degree, I think. But on the other hand, just because that's how Plato and Aristotle thought doesn't mean it's necessarily correct, and since those analyses are so low res (in that they only really hold true at the most general level) I also suspect that they're not very accurate. On top of which, what if many such universal analysis are correct? So, what if both of our levels of analysis are true in the same way at the same time? And might not there be even more interpretations we could generalize to the entirety of the ideas there?

>>135400378

>guys you totally should give up your most potent meme
>muh concern about teh bible!

fuck off shariablue

>>135400378
Fuck off, /pol/ is a Jewish board.

File: Evil and Racism.png (120KB, 736x778px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 736x778px

>>135400228
>I'm not familiar with it. tl;dr?
I was trying to post the Ted excerpt for you but forgot I had already used something else for the second part of my post.

>>135400372
>What do you do with people who are very unattractive? Are they excluded?
No, not at all. But if someone looks off putting, dangerous more appropriately, it would be detrimental to conveying the message with positive reinforcement. By attractive I mean business casual, maybe I should clarify.

>And what about the people who do seem to be agents provocateurs?
Even discussing of violent or illegal action will get you reported to the police and banned from the group I believe. I don't want to speak on that group's behalf, but I think anyone who passes the vetting has the same understanding of situations the west is facing at the moment. It's comprised of educated, employed, veterans, etc. I didn't know that about the Proud Boys, but it's expected.
>any way to solve the problem actually makes it worse
Freedom of speech, it's the best tool we have

>>135400283
I believe I learned that one from reading Eric Breindel. In any event, ideological subversion of Western societies was the main job of KGB. That was their mission. Funding subversive political groups was exactly the sort of thing they did.

The shills are working in overdrive. They are failing and working in a final act of desperation. Crumbling

>>135400378
D&C

File: 0137859374.jpg (1MB, 1002x1544px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1002x1544px

>>135391297
Daily reminder that you can still sort yourself out no matter how badly things are going.

>>135400806
Wouldn't surprise me. I want to know why she quit the Rebel.

>>135400939
you are fucking stupid if you think anything that has to do with the occult is not done by kikes. But hey do /we you want I'm not your dad

>>135399895
I've been reading some posts in this thread and yours. One question popped up in my head. It feels that Christianity was deliberately designed to help the "right" hold themselves back, turning the burning sword of truth on themselves, as Petersson elegantly put it to "burn of the deadwood". So would you say that, not necessarily a resurrection of God, or perhaps we are even talking about Christ, but maybe a restructuring of a son of Christ? A righteous successor born out of the ideals of Christ is probably better worded for what I want to say, would be a necessary addition to western civilization?

>>135400378
Chaos is good, order is what brings relaxation and weaknesss

File: download (14).jpg (70KB, 1500x1639px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1500x1639px

im proud of you for---literally nothing. you are propping up someone who shills for the holohoax. grow up.

>>135401195
Then it seems to me that you want something along the lines of marketing or mass communications. Here, read a book.
http://www.historyisaweapon.org/defcon1/bernprop.html

>Freedom of speech, it's the best tool we have
It's the best tool they have, too. And some of them know it.

File: download (12).png (15KB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x200px

ITT, pseudo-intellectual beta males mentally masturbate to false idols and Jewish shills.

File: 1496411350040.jpg (13KB, 319x331px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 319x331px

>>135401643
>>135401500
those are not 4chan images...

>>135400894
I roughly disagree with the individualism/collectivism separation, mainly since it's not at the core of the issue and there are ideologies that don't fit the bill. Nationalism (and things such as white supremacism) are inherently collectivist since they focus on the value of the group, not on the individual. Similarly, I wouldn't exactly call certain hippies 'collectivists' either.

So far my belief was that my 'theory', even if it's fairly low resolution, encompasses every single right or left-wing ideology, and separates them into meaningful categories. If you have a counterexample that might not fit the bill, I'm curious. What's perhaps more important is that I've been able to use this approach in much more specific cases to develop a better understanding of it and to see both sides.

Here's another way to explain it which I just came up with:
Think of society as a whole as a set of many games that people participate in, which separates people into 'winners' and 'losers' by a not-arbitrary metric. Some games (such as social status) are games you can't choose not to participate in. Now what happens is that the left-wing mainly sees the losers, and the aspect of losing, and they ask "What should be done about this?", while the right-wing mainly focuses on the winners, and the aspect of winning, and asks "What should be done about this?"

This leads to a whole bunch of different conclusions: The left-wing is afraid of the game being inherently unfair (this is why denying biological differences is common for them, for example) and that people might rig the game. The right-wing sees that it's important to sustain the conditions of the game, otherwise no one is going to win at all.

>>135401309
I can't say I have ever thought of it. My instinct is to say that Christianity has changed a lot over the past 2000 years, and when you say it seems designed to do something, my question is, "designed by who?" And if your answer to that is God, it's like but what about all the different people who changed it in so many different ways. So for instance at the Council of Nicea in 325, did those bishops want something that reinforced what you today interpret as the political right? Did Emperor Constantine? To what degree did any of them have more influence than the others to decide Biblical canon? Or what about Martin Luther? Was his heresy rightist? Or was the Church rightist? I mean, I don't know, but that's probably just my reaction because my field is history.

>>135401303

>leftists can't fight the meme war because their memes sucks
>PLS STOP USING YOUR MEMES, BOO HOO

Nice try kike, i think you really might turn some heads with that concern trolling about pretending to be a Christfag which has literally ZERO relevance to the meme war. Fuck off back to leftypol with your obvious D&C shit.

File: 1489094616409.gif (1012KB, 245x258px) Image search: [Google]

1012KB, 245x258px

>>135401643
>it's another I'm just here to LARP and not actually try to learn or make a difference episode

File: ZanjBrFTdGwcPhU5fOzYs3CkIImMXiflyUrSc0RLsNE.jpg (170KB, 1024x752px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1024x752px

>>135391297
Peterson has taken the bog pill, roughly speaking

>>135393018
This is a valid criticism of him. He seems a bit out of his depth with the political analysis. At least he's spot on with the religious archetypes.

File: socialist_is_disgusted.preview[1].jpg (183KB, 632x640px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 632x640px

>>135401816
Well, I'm not terribly committed to the idea I put forth, since to have any political participation is necessarily a form of collectivism.

We can get deeper into your ideas, but I sense we may start devolving into definitions of key terms, which I suppose is appropriate for a philosophical discussion. I think it is very easy to point out counterexamples. So for instance there's Stalinism, which is not concerned with wanting to protect losers. Stalin was a mass murderer. So then the response might be, "but he murdered who he viewed as winners to protect who he viewed as losers." So then the question is what do you mean by winners and losers then? And if that's subjective, then maybe what you view as the right are doing it, just to the opposite guys.

Another example, I would say, is the American Democrat party. Those guys couldn't give the first care about losers, except to make more of them so they can exploit them. Alternatively, the few of them who may be genuine are so fast to abandon any value they say they have just to win an election, because their view is that if you cannot win, you cannot implement policy, and then your values don't matter anyway.

But then you might say that the Democrats aren't actually left. Maybe they're a different kind of right based on your method of categorizing them. So definitionally, what is left and right anyway? And if we define them by your standard, then of course your standard would be correct. But if we define them by some other universal metric, then that would be the correct way to categorize them universally, wouldn't it?

Anyway, I think you're making a version of a libertarian argument I've seen posted around. Meme related. Memes are great. I love memes. But if you can boil your entire analysis down into one, you might want to think it through again.

And that's not even touching what fairness or unfairness even means, because if Socrates couldn't figure that out I'm not arrogant enough to think I can.

>>135401834
I am looking mostly at religion from the view point that the definition of God is a representation in words for the will of society. And to answer the "designed by who?" I would like to say: By everyone that shared those ideals. So in a way, it is written by everyone and not one in particular at the same time, so by God is both an accurate and flawed description at the same time. There is also no doubt in my mind that Christianity was tampered with at several points, my biggest suspicion you named, Constantine. But we need to question whether or not the additions was made in order to update the findings of what happens when following that path. As Luthers "update" was chiefly concerned about the misuse of indulgence (This is what I have been taught in school). So in a way, the bible in my speculation, is a collective of learned lessons meant to be updated as new societal challenges appears and this has taken place over at least two centuries.
To sum it up, I think that I want to say is that specifically the bible is meant to be a collection of wisdom, that has been built upon by a collection of unique individuals throughout the history of mankind, whose collective knowledge would in a sense classify them as a god, and we should maybe look towards it again to extract the much needed wisdom, not to build a new religion from scratch, but rebirth the ideals to reign us in and remind us that we are but men.

>>135402922
I see what you're getting at, and I suppose it's good that you brought it up. It's a very reasonable complain, but to put it simply, I don't think it destroys the core of the argument for reasons that are my own fault. So far I was entirely talking about 'ideologies', that is, concepts and beliefs.

Applying this idea to the real world only works insofar you're looking at the way people think, not the implementation of political ideas. That is, if you explain to me the concept of an ideology, then I'd be able to categorize it as left-wing or right-wing in a fairly reasonable manner, but whether any of this would work in real life, or for which reasons it wouldn't is up for debate.

My proposal wasn't meant to explain or categorize political systems as they exist, rather to categorize the way people think. That is, the leftist notions of socialism, communism and other ideologies are ultimatively based on the notion, that the game played should be as fair as possible, or that (the extreme case) no one should have to lose the game at all (at this point it's plain utopic). Whether Stalinism or the American Democrats had anything to do with that doesn't matter, since these are not ideologies, they are or were existing institutions.

You might say that it's a bad theory if it doesn't work on 'existing' systems, but that's incorrect since it wasn't meant to explain these existing systems in the first place. It's meant to explain the basis of leftist or right-wing thinking, and you can apply it to an ideological thought or belief and categorize it.

>>135401917
That's fucking incredible. Bravo

>>135403423
Well that's a very interesting perspective, but again I have to say I have never thought about it that way. I have to wonder about a definition of God as the will of society, because I think a lot of the time what people claim to be the will of society is just what they think will benefit them, but that's their method of convincing everyone to go along with them. For instance, I had a conversation some time ago about the recent classification of the Confederate flag as a hate symbol. It was the contention of the other person that this was simply because society had deemed it to be so, and "it was time." But then it's like, who exactly deemed it? Why? Who put them in the position of power to do so?

But if it's God that's the will of society, well shit you're a Sven, your god would be radical feminism and gynocentric tyranny. I don't know about you, but that's no kind of god I want to worship.

But maybe that's why you find Christianity attractive as an alternative. It's as though you're looking for a higher moral authority than the one you've been bludgeoned with your entire life that has had outcomes which you consider to be obviously negative. I'm not sure how that one will work out for you, if so. For a higher authority to be effective, it must be respected, and so far as I can tell the other Svens no longer respect Christianity. Didn't the head Swedish "bishop" remove crosses from churches because they might bother muslims?

But all that being said, I really don't have any answers for you. I am sympathetic to what seems to be your desire to change your society from what it is to what it once was, because it looks like what it has become is pretty bad for you. I just don't know that your analysis will get it there.

>>135401309
Very juicy idea. This one has legs.

>>135401917
my fucking sides, man. all this serious shit in this thread, then BAM.

>>135395155
>>135395992
Try watching them in shorter bursts. I have a pretty good attention span and I had to watch half a lecture each time (he takes a break for his irl class, so that's when I would stop too), you could partition them even more if you need to.
Also don't worry about not understanding everything he says straight away, they're pretty meaning-heavy and you'll want to rewatch them anyways. I'd recommend you start with MoM 2017 btw.

>>135398046
There's a reason right-wing totalitarian ideologies are called reactionary. We're conservative, for sure, but aside from small fringe groups the average right winger wouldn't be calling for 1488 gas the kikes etc. if they weren't messing shit up to the degree they are. Pretty much every modern reactionary movement came forth after an extreme progressive push by the other side (weimar republic comes to mind). Society becomes too progressive (meaning too chaotic) and the common folk run back to conservatism (order) as people will usually do, JBP talks about that a lot.

>>135405083
>I just don't know that your analysis will get it there.
So what will?

>>135404237
Alright. Well then why call it left or right anyway, since those are existing terms that already seek to define ideologies and already have established meanings, albeit that may be nebulous or subject to change. Shit, you're a German. Your people have a long tradition of making up new terms. Add some to it and give yourself an alternative political spectrum theory with your name on it.

So I suppose that's just a way to say that the left and the right probably have definitional universals that already exist to categorize ideologies on the spectrum, so yours probably won't always fit. But there's a pretty big problem with that, which I think the Frankfurt school figured out. As soon as you label something, politically minded people will begin to use the label against it. I think this is especially true with the right in Germany, which can't get off the ground because any time anything vaguely right happens, political leftists pounce on it to call it Nazi, and the rest of the people just nod their heads and agree that everything Nazi is awful.

So maybe that's what gives rise to your institution/ideology binary. It seems to me on first glance that what you call here institutions are made up of ideologies, or at least have foundational ideologies that underlie their existence. But in a sense they're less pure in the same way that physics is less pure than mathematics because it's applied.

So then that's another perspective, it's like you're trying to induce a Platonic ideal of political philosophy out of the reality of the applied political ideologies you observe. And sure, you can do that so long as your logic and evidence is sound, but I think you're looking at a lifetime's work making sure that it's sound and answering every criticism, if that's the road you want to go down.

>>135405926
>I'd recommend you start with MoM 2017 btw.
My nigger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kppx4bzfAaE

>>135406111
Sorry, I don't mean to be defeatist, praise Kek. But that's a hell of a question that I suspect no one man can answer alone. So maybe in the end Sven was right, and what he needs is a broader societal expression of ideology to get anywhere.

>>135398872
>a time of major crisis, which will come eventually, but the time is not now
The current system is designed to be in a permanent state of crisis, but for people never to fully flip into crisis mode.
Have you seen those pictures of people pushing wheelbarrows of money around Weimar Germany, and sweeping up piles of abandoned bills in the streets?
That's a crisis, but you don't see it on the people's faces.
We're in a crisis now.

>>135406463
This whole thread is a waste of time, then. You've spent so much time dismantling the ideas, pointing out how and why they won't work, without providing any sort of alternative. You claim to be sympathetic. If so, spend this equivalent amount of effort on finding good solutions to the problem, and coming up with realistic, practical ways that everyone can help.
Otherwise, no matter how noble your intentions, you're really just demoralising for the sake of it.

>>135406763
Oh, Ausfailia. Never change. If you want a simple answer, then we can go with what Dr. Peterson says. Clean your room, sort yourself, rescue your father, slay the dragon, get the gold and the virgin.

But if you think a single thread will come up with a solution that'll solve all the world's problems, then I'm sorry to disabuse you. Nevertheless I find these discussions invaluable because it is through these musings that greater truths are discovered. That's really the value of the humanities, in a sense, because you catch glimmers of real truth. And if you do it enough, then maybe you get enough of the truth to add to the knowledge base of mankind. And if enough people do that, then maybe you can find new profundities that do in amalgam add up to the kind of solution that you seem to want in simple form without doing the hard work.

>>135406199
>why call it left or right anyway, since those are existing terms that already seek to define ideologies and already have established meanings, albeit that may be nebulous or subject to change
Since it seems to match the 'real' definitions as far as ideologies are concerned. Communism, socialism, nationalism, libertarianism, capitalism, conservativism, etc., it seems to match on a really basic level, and I don't believe it's something new at all. It's not like I made these up from nothing, I looked at the way people talk about it and looked at what's similar across all 'left' ideologies, and at what's similar across all 'right' ideologies. For me it was more an attempt to explain what these words even mean in a way people might agree on it, since any other 'definitions' I saw don't seem to match reality and often tend to be biased. It worked for me so far, but I still find it difficult to explain.

>As soon as you label something, politically minded people will begin to use the label against it
Tell me 'bout it. It's pretty awful, yeah.

>institution/ideology binary
Less pure is one way to look at it, but I don't think it's the main difference. What's more important than that is that an ideology is a set of beliefs, an existing institution isn't. It's possible to look at concepts such as 'communism' and ask why people believe in this, what their core values are, it's not possible to do the same with institutions, especially if they merely claim to represent certain values. It is, however, possible to ask which core ideological reasons lead people to believe in an institution, but there are too many outside factors to separate it from the ideology itself.

>>135398578
Are you Peterson? You talk a lot like him.

>>135408003

He's an autistic cultist who's trying to imitate his guru. It's creepy as fuck.

>>135405083
The will of society is more of the idea that we are individuals but still upholds the same principles. I have observed a lite version of this in the emergence of Kek on 4chan. We joke about how Kek speaks through us by digits, so we are at least aware of Kek and its chaotic will and we jokingly uphold that idea. Let us make an analogue which I have thought about for a time now. Put a stone in a field, and add a group of people. Everyone wants to try move that stone, but as soon as they try they are all pushing it towards different directions, it will not move. But as soon as you give everyone a direction in form of a path to follow. That stone will not roll but fly away in sheer force. Therefor we might also need something to reign that group into understanding why. To tie it back to Kek, Kek has manifested through us joking about it but at the same time we have figuratively given that stone a light push. Now what that those consequences are I can't point out, but I am sure we have all felt them.
So if we now that that same idea and put Christianity in charge of direction and reigning us in. What is the result? To answer that I will use Petersons definition of ideals, which is Truth above all even your family, Importance of Individuality and Responsibility. I know Western Civilization is one of the results and I suspect that laws and human rights are also a result of everyone upholding the ideals of Christianity. The latter is mostly a result of why I always have felt like when the politicians here Sweden says it is our duty to uphold the human rights it feels hollow since they themselves does not uphold them. Take the current scandal in Sweden which is only serving to bitter us more. If no one in Sweden believes in responsibility, and truth, how can we even hope to bring those responsible to justice?

I will bow out, since I need do things for today, but If you ever feel like discussing with me again I will be around Petersons threads.

>>135392478
But those same weapons has created their downfall.
Feminists claiming men oppress them.
Blacks claiming white supremacy.
LGBTQ claiming Cis-sexism.
These weapons are turning the movement into a joke. Even less people will vote for the democrats and the left in the next election.
That is the trap he speaks off.
He wants us to present a normal sane alternative.
So that the people abandoning the authoritarian left can find another option to support.
Otherwise they may just continue supporting those dickheads because there isn't any better option available to them.

File: 1478893733317.png (207KB, 322x583px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 322x583px

>>135408114

>>135407881
I'm not afraid of doing the hard work, but are you? Focus on what we can do.

>>135407939
Well, okay. Again I think, because of my field and background, that the real definition of left and right are what is relatively close to the Jacobin position versus the Girondin position. Since there's been a lot of evolution in a lot of different directions in a lot of different places since then, the unification of ideas is lost behind the realities of what actually occurred.

Interesting, though, that you would put communism on the concept side of your binary, since the institutions of communism were actualized, so that by now we have history to test it. tl;dr it is lacking.

But really, I think if you're struggling with trying to elucidate your ideas you should look into inductive reasoning and read the Greek philosophers. I think you sound very Platonic.

>>135408003
No. See:
>>135394748

>>135408114
Still sore that I called out KGB? Why does that hurt you so much, Ivan?

File: 1500249657704.jpg (163KB, 700x609px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 700x609px

>>135391297
thanks internet-dad

>>135392180
Funny story, he uses the exact same phrasing for the rise of the Alt-Right as he did earlier on with neo-Nazis
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP3mSamRbYA#t=56s
>There are some awful people lurking in the corners, and they're ready to come out
>if the radical left keeps pushing the way they're pushing, they're going to come

Makes me proud to see a thread with mostly healthy debate and minimal shills.

>>135408240
Good to talk to you, Sven. I hope we can have more discussions.

I think I see what you're saying, but I think you're influenced by your Swedishness. Although I do not fully understand it, I think Swedish culture puts the highest value on abandoning individualism in all ways and subordinating to the group will, even to the point of not being successful if it will make lazy people near you look like they don't work as hard (when that's actually what's going on).

But you may be on the right path with Christianity. You're right that Peterson (a Christian) values truth (Logos) and that's revolutionary in an era where postmodernism is as widely respected as it is. Maybe if we have time to think about and process our ideas we'll come up with even better ones.

>>135408950
>Jacobin position versus the Girondin position
I'll look this one up later.

>Interesting, though, that you would put communism on the concept side of your binary, since the institutions of communism were actualized, so that by now we have history to test it. tl;dr it is lacking.
When leftists talk about 'communism' they're talking about the concept of communism. Of course people tried to implement communism, but that doesn't mean the concept itself doesn't exist anymore. When people wish for a 'communist' society they're not saying they want to travel back in time to live in the UDSSR. There is the 'concept' of communism, and there are real examples of communist societies. You can categorize the faith people put into the former and figure out for which reasons they believe in this concept.
tl;dr Concepts /= reality. You can have one apple, another apple, and that's two apples, but the apples aren't the numbers themselves.

>But really, I think if you're struggling with trying to elucidate your ideas you should look into inductive reasoning and read the Greek philosophers. I think you sound very Platonic.
I might do that. For now I need to go, anyway. Perhaps this thread will still be up when I'm back.

>>135408355
Yes, you're right. The leftists (especially SJWs and progressives) got out of control and caused a backlash.

But you're also wrong. The leftists have been to a large degree very successful. So it's as likely as not that the current counter-movement is an aberration after which we'll see a reassertion of the left. In 2008 they spoke of a permanent Democrat majority in the United States. Well what if they were right, they were just off by a few years? So then it's like, whites are destined to become a minority in America in a very few short years if nothing changes, and there's no reason to think that anything will. And what was the fate of minorities in America? And how did minorities, especially racial minorities as whites are poised to become, advocate for themselves to any degree successfully?

At the same time, the authoritarian left always had sane opposition. The conservatives were arguing them into the ground for decades. It just didn't matter, because writing cleverly worded articles for the readership of the Weekly Standard and National Review doesn't do a thing to convince the broader public, it turns out.

>>135408645
I think I've done more intellectual weightlifting in this thread than you have.

>>135395784
t. le enlightened an-cap.

>>135397545
The problem is that we don't currently have a libertarian true free market and neither do we have a truly nationalist nation, we have something in the middle that gets the negative drawbacks of both systems but none of the benefits of either systems.

>>135398111
In america and the anglosphere white nationalism is going to always have a civic nationalist character to it. What I imagine happening is instead of kicking people out, the people who do not want to live in a white dominated society are going to go off on their own path to create something for themselves. In more practical terms its going to be civic nationalism where everyone including the non-whites understand maintaining the white demographic majority is important.

File: 1q4S.png (275KB, 1004x625px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 1004x625px

>>135391297
Guys..

File: Father, take this rock from me, amen..jpg (71KB, 321x220px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 321x220px

>>135391297

>>135393018
>>135394659
>>135396244
unusually high quality posting for /pol/

peterson brings out the best in people

>>135416004
Goys...

>>135391297
Most of the hate stems from the Bosch and their favored, bean-bag spics, I've noticed.

>>135393487
>Fuck, it's what we're doing right now. We're synthesizing what we learned from Peterson with the rest of our own personal experiences (including wildly different educational backgrounds), then coming together as a group so that the collective ideas can act themselves out.
yeah, and this is why places like /pol/ are so valuable, even despite the shitposting and slide threads. in the past, smart people would get together and talk about shit, butting heads over ideology and eventually perhaps reaching some mutual conclusions. but now in 2017, we all have connections to a globally-connected information network in our pockets at all times, so all of us can connect and exchange memes more efficiently than any point in known history.

imagine if you could have sex over the Internet, and what that would do to the genetic makeup of the world. you can't yet, as we haven't yet been able to convert genes into electronic data and back again... but we ARE doing that with memes. we have written and verbal language, and we can synthesize sounds, images, videos, and even interactive entertainment like video games, and transmit any and all of this over the Internet to everyone else in the world, instantaneously. it's the meme equivalent of having sex over the Internet, all the time, constantly—our memes and ideologies are spreading and filtering through everyone's brains around the world in a way that we've never before thought possible.

this is the reason for the strange state of the world today. we still haven't fully evolved our tailbones away, yet we're already waist-deep in a massively disruptive societal transformation in terms of how we interact with other members of our species at a global scale.

we live in exciting and awesome (literal definition) fucking times, and to be honest I'm just grateful and excited to share it with all of you. anyone who takes the time to read this lengthy post in full: I feel connected to you at a deep, emotional level. thank you

flat earth 200 proofs -dubay

>>135392478
>>135393018
>>135393281
>>135394397
>>135395374

Great posts.

>>135392696
MAKE YOUR BED

This guy will never call out who's behind SJWism and will probably vehemently defend the idea that race doesn't exist

He attacks low hanging fruit for brownie points just like Sargon and others. Worthless man. Literally anyone can debunk feminists and SJW tier arguments, this fag just wants the money (literally he gets 50k per month on patron from worthless fags like yourself)

>>135392355
Exactly This

>>135391297

Thanks Dad

File: 1501244385633.png (1MB, 1376x1199px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1376x1199px

>>135419487
Cheers Anon. This is easily the best cuckchan thread I've seen in a while

>>135424023
Forgot about this but these Frenchies have been doing a half decent translation of Solzhenitsyns '200 Years Together' i.e. the banned book on kikes

>>135424299
Fucking hell...
https://twohundredyearstogether.wordpress.com/

File: lel.png (299KB, 1215x456px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 1215x456px

>>135391297
>Just know you are doing the right thing and I love you.
Except it's not the right thing and you don't love jack shit considering you and your fathers are the ones that allowed this shit hole of modern day to appear.

The right thing is to exterminate all Jews, revoke all rights of women and only allow them to have rights through men.

Jakob "can't figure out why anyone hates jews" Peterson only loves you and your goys money considering he makes over 50k a month.

>>135391723
lmao this dumbass thinks it's not the matter of your values, but the fact that you're a weak person of values. Each Jakob Peterson thread you can see more and more how much of a dumbfuck this guy actually is.

>>135397604
>WE

>>135424470
how's that working out for you so far, champ?

>>135393018
>he says that politics is essentially an expression of one's personality type
Wrong. Nearly everyone's politics is brainwashing from birth to think that the individual is the smallest unit of society, when the correct answer is that family is the smallest unit of society. The debate of family vs individual was lost thanks to jews powering through it with money and war so now everyone in moderrn day will only think "of course the individual is the smallest unit of society".

The fact that Peterson has not realized this nor read into history of the debate shows he's a dumbfuck jew intent on getting money from low IQ faggots like yourself.

>>135424770
Just great kiddo seeing as how the alt right grows every day and the altcuck is proven wrong time and time again.

File: WjEWQIWTQC0.jpg (101KB, 600x599px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 600x599px

>>135400262
https://youtu.be/AL1Prrtl1Gg

>>135401643
>everyones dumb but me

>>135399580

THanks for your posts. You have a lot of knowledge, and it seems some wisdom too.
I am afraid, because as you said our opposition wants to radicalize us and divide us further. You also see that shills are taking advantage of the differences in the skeptic community and the christian community here. I do not see a way out of the further radicalization, and I fear the globalists are going to win. What do you think we can do?

>>135393098
leaf plz go

>>135397106
>NYC
>Majority white

keep shilling faggot spic