I asked myself a question, after reading these posts: “Is there an alternative to confirming or not confirming Kavanaugh?” When a choice appears starkly binary, a third path appears impossible, by definition — but might possibly still be worth seeking. I tried to place myself in Kavanaugh’s position, while generating a potential answer (and think that I can do so with some justification, having been publicly identified as reprehensible by many people—prominent journalists, activists, and academics among them).
I thought, “He can’t withdraw, prior to the nomination, because his reputation has been savaged so badly that withdrawal would not only mean loss of the Supreme Court nomination, but demolition of his entire career and future life.” So the only way for Kavanaugh was forward, through the FBI investigation, on to the nomination hearing, and the hope that he would be… what? Cleared? Not cleared, because it is too late for that, even given the favorable or at least not damning FBI report. A large percentage of the American public does not believe that he is an appropriate choice for the highest bench position in the land (51%, according to NY Mag: https://nym.ag/2RwLUGt, citing a CNN poll). I’m not claiming, necessarily, that CNN’s poll is reliable. It doesn’t matter. What matters is that there is very widespread opposition to his candidacy, much of it generated not by people’s belief in his innocence or lack therefore but by their objection to the manner in which both parties handled the nomination process.
Now he tries to mitigate the damage. But he still got it out there like he meant it at a critical moment. And he defended the idea as plausible afterward. And now he is setting himself up as a thought-experimenter, who can never be held responsible for any future tweet that supports evil at critical moments, because it was just part of his process. I’d love to see a real time graph of his books sales, and see if there was a sudden spike of bulk sales right after that tweet.
If you take him at his word, then every tweet he gives should be ignored. Now everything he says is not his opinion, or even correct. Every tweet is basically just him talking out of his ass randomly and spouting whatever pops into his head at that moment. If you want that, there is no shortage of people you could follow on twitter who will provide it, and many will be funnier and more entertaining than Peterson.
Second, the logic he espouses is so defective it is beyond reprehensible. If Kavanaugh stepped down, that is what the left wanted. That would only encourage them to use lies to character assassinate the next nominee, just as much as if he was not voted into the office. In a battle between good and evil, there is no third way. That he thinks that even possible shows he lacks the ability to reason effectively, and the will to stand for good, no matter how unpleasant. Even his premise – Kavanaugh was horribly slandered, but the people who oppose him, and slandered him, should have their wishes considered – is totally ridiculous. This is a great thinker?
Notice the themes Peterson promulgates in the post, and the persuasion he uses to manipulate the weaker among his viewers. Kavanaugh was a bad choice to serve, because a majority didn’t want him according to an MSM poll. He claims that fact as support for his cause, then he himself admits that may not be true, and then says it doesn’t matter anyway. Notice how it weasels around into that foggy area where facts are dimmed in the mind, so emotional persuasion can cut through the fog and hold sway.
He cites the bogus poll, then he says something you would agree with – that the polls are probably not correct – which dials down the amygdala. The he tells you the fact being right or wrong doesn’t matter – followed quickly by Kavanaugh was unacceptable anyway. He fosters the confusion about facts being right, or wrong, they matter, they don’t matter, then he inserts that Kavanaugh was still unacceptable regardless of the confusions your brain is still absorbed by. In weaker minds, that last idea – that no matter right or wrong Kavanaugh is bad, slips in. The brain accepts the final idea in some, just to be able to abandon the cognitive dissension from the confusions he introduced.
That is a stab at psychological persuasion, being used to manipulate the weaker minds on our side to come around to the leftist position, namely that Kavanaugh is tainted and was unacceptable on the bench. You can see it with his characterization of the FBI report too. The “… at least not damning FBI report.” That report said there was no evidence for any of the accusations. It said that every witness cited – by the accuser – certified that none of it was true It even said there was a coordinated political campaign to push the accusations regardless. Peterson is not stupid. He knows that. He made the characterization he did to manipulate the weaker, more persuadable among his viewers.
Notice how he begins characterizing the report as “favorable,” to shut down your amygdala-resistance, before correcting it to, “at least not damning.” Peterson is a psychologist. That is a purposeful stab at manipulation, and altering perception. You may be smarter, but if he has gotten a million supporters, there is a percentage that just had their perceptions about Kavanaugh shifted by a correction, from “favorable,” to “at least not damning,” and they will see Kavanaugh as a little less innocent, and maybe less defensible.
And that ignores the figures he associates with, who he quotes at the beginning, to lend authority to. Whenever you see these characters who weakly attack everyone – they are avoiding conflict in a polarized environment by trying to separate themselves from all sides in the battle so they will not have to engage anyone. That is not logic, it is intellectual cowardice and lack of morality. They are afraid to take a side, and they are cloaking the position as making them smarter than everyone else who is involved in the battle.
No wonder it is the intellectual dark web. You will not be seeing light cast on anything by that motley crew of cowards and morons. You can almost see them throwing shadows anywhere, to create a world where nothing is right or wrong, nothing is worth fighting for, everybody is wrong and evil, and only the most hip and smart intellectuals can see that. I almost wonder if the term “Dark Web” was some sort of inside joke. You get caught in that web of darkness, and never get out.
I’m going to take another position, and this is not me talking out of my ass spouting random thoughts that just popped in my head. It is my honest to God belief, which I would stake my life on. Kavanaugh is a good man who did NONE of what he is accused of. He will be an excellent Justice who, in his duties, will protect our Constitution and render justice to those who appear before him. He will be a staunch protector of freedom, and oppose evil with everything he has. Moreover, Kavanaugh is a hero, who has risked his family, endured having to suppress rage beyond all measure, and allowed the left to try and destroy him personally, so he could carry out the difficult job of protecting freedom in this age. All so that one day he can help hand it to the patriots of the next generation.
Another position : The left who attacked Kavanaugh are evil incarnate – the kind the world is better off without. If you need proof, look to Justice K’s wife and young daughters, and imagine what the left tried to do to that beautiful family. Suppose their accuser had been more credible and the accusations had been tied to some irrefutable events that could act as corroboration. Imagine if they had amasses witnesses to testify they saw what was accused. Suppose Justice K’s wife had believed the left, and divorced him, and destroyed his family and his life. Suppose his daughters had to grow up only rarely seeing their dad on weekends. Suppose Kavanaugh fell into depression and committed suicide. The left wanted everybody to believe those accusations. That is what the left wanted.
Do you think the left would have felt chastened, or do you think they would have cheered his family being ripped apart and his life being left in such utter destruction? Suppose the left saw irrefutable evidence that their accusations were wrong. Do you think they would have felt bad afterward about what they did?
Of course not. They would have laughed. They would have cheered and high-fived each other. Those are the people who Jordan Peterson is telling you are upstanding people you should hear out, and whose positions and wishes ought to be respected and honored as if they are our equals. Those are the people he laments we are divided from, and who we have such partisan battles with. Those are who he wants to mollify, and find common ground with, and work with.
The only just outcome was for Kavanaugh to take the bench to the cheers of patriots, rule justly ad bravely in support of freedom and justice for life, and for his enemies to have no doubt their evil was quashed, and their evil tactics will not work in this nation. Anybody who says otherwise either has an agenda, is an imbecile totally detached from reality, or is some combination thereof.
And one other position – Jordan Peterson is evil. If you take him at face value he is an intellectual fraud who holds himself as a fountain of ideas you should listen to. But then he admits his proclamations are random and not necessarily logical or thought out, or necessarily even representative of what he believes. As a convenient result, you can’t call him out when he is caught spouting utter bullshit.
But if you believe he is merely a mid-witted intellectual fraud, you are ignoring the more ominous uses of psychological persuasion techniques to push his followers toward the left. That says to me he knows he needs help fostering adoption of his ideas, which means he probably knows he is not espousing simple truths that are totally apparent.
Personally I do not think him stupid – I think he knows exactly what he is doing – he is carving out a well paid life for himself as a pied piper on the right, leading as many minds as he can to support the left and excuse its evil. Mark my words – he has a million twitter followers because he has support somewhere.
I am sorry Vox Day beat me so decisively to the call on Peterson.
If you are really in search of truth, follow Molyneux, and Vox, and Bill Whittle, and James Woods, and the God Emperor, and avoid these tools who try to play all sides for their own benefit. Because there is only one side which pays its minions. Honest truth doesn’t pay these days.
There is a right and a wrong, and we are decidedly on the side of right in this battle. It is not even close. Never doubt our opposition is evil, and they relentlessly seek the destruction of good – and that means you.
GREAT write up, thank you.
Yes, Vox Day had this joker’s number a few months back under some extremely intense criticism. He was called jealous, stupid, dishonest, etc. and at the end of the day he’s completely vindicated.
Every observation Vox made was revealed in that one unmasked tweet. And then Scott Adams decides to run defense on him too. So in my mind that makes Scott Adams immediately suspect too.
I really liked Peterson after hearing him in a couple Joe Rogan podcasts, when I made the mistake (like I did with W) of judging the man by his enemies. Turns out that’s not enough, you need to hear their words and see their actions.
Peterson did incredible harm to his reputation, and can now be reasonably considered controlled opposition.
I’ve looked at SA’s responses, and I don’t see him “running defense” He’s said that JP’s ideas don’t make sense on their face. The closest he’s come is applying his own “If someone says something inflammatory, and within 24 adds context to the statement, I will accept the context” rule.
SA applied his rule, which isn’t endorsement, and then proceeded to call the idea bad and nonsensical.
Peterson is a Judas Goat.
I suspect Peterson associated too much with Ben Shapiro….. and that idiot gasbag is dangerous to anyone that spends too long with him.
Peterson never claimed to be right wing. He is just another confused paleo liberal that doesn’t understand the new playing field.
He really should avoid commenting on US politics. His idea showed a complete ignorance of contemporary American politics and the consequences of his recommendation.
As with any would be pundit, YMMV. Every person is flawed. Everyone has a few odd quirks. And often make mistakes. I read a large variety of sources and take from each little or a lot and give varying credibility to each.
Peterson likes to think out loud, while interacting. Twitter is a non-thinking format designed for emotional manipulation. He really should avoid it.
No. AC is 100% correct. Peterson knows exactly what he is doing.
There is one other piece of evidence that supports your claim. The left is no longer protesting him. I went to a lecture of his earlier this year at a liberal university in a major East Coast city, and there were zero protesters…
I don’t follow the guy on Twitter, so when I saw the tweet, as aggressively stupid as it was, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and went looking for his other SCOTUS comments for perspective. And there were none. Nothing on Gorsuch, Garland, nada. Just complete drive-by grandstanding by this guy who has come up with quite the racket.
the whores of Patreon
”That would only encourage them to use lies to character assassinate the next nominee, just as much as if he was not voted into the office. ”
Do you think this encouragement could be used to inflict a more final and long-lasting blow than as it happens now?
The Mongols used “Retreat” in order to lead enemies into a trap and was key to many of their victories.
Possibly…
“There is a right and a wrong, and we are decidedly on the side of right in this battle. It is not even close. Never doubt our opposition is evil, and they relentlessly seek the destruction of good – and that means you.”
You.
Your wife.
Your children.
Your entire lineage.
They want you dead or under their Chinese foot soldier’s boots.
That is what fascinates me. They had no fear the Chinese would turn on them. Think about that. Give me that mission, and I am thinking that as soon as the Chinese defeat America and dominate the world, they would turn on me, as an obvious outsider. The Chinese do not have a reputation for wanting to be controlled by white outsiders. But they felt they would go on and run China the same way they ran America. That is a huge sign of some sort there – what it means I do not know.
But it opens the door to the fact they could view us, as being as foreign to them as the Chinese. Does that mean they are European? Could it mean they are more different, along the line of Vault-Co’s melonheads? Are they aristocratic lines, which view themselves as being as different from Americans as the Chinese? If we saw them, would we view them as being as different from us as the Chinese? Have we ever even seen them? If you flash forwarded to China in a few decades in their plan, the Chinese like us would never have seen them. Maybe we haven’t ever seen them either.
It could mean that they are anything, and it implies to me they felt they had perfected a style of control which could be run absent any direct interactions or exposures of who they are.
The whole thing looks so fascinating. To only know what Trump knows.
Agreed. The Chinese are proven to in group. They would turn on these jerks as soon as they had control. Maybe, it has to do with the Chinese and the red headed mummies found in Xiaohe. Returning to their roots? Pure speculation on my part but it would be interesting to find out.
Genetic collectivists.
http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC2894685
I noticed looking at people like Valerie J that black + European ends up looking distinctly Asian…. facial bones.
Your assessment of this situation and this personality was so inaccurate that, as a long time reader, I am now questioning the usefulness of everything I have ever read here.
And this comment raises questions for me. If it is real, and I question that, the problem is you are conflating personalities with ideas. Vox Day has keen insights. Vox Day is not his ideas. Vox can be wrong about any number of things. He has openly told me he doubts r/K Theory. That has no bearing on my assessment of the myriad fo other ideas he presents.
Suppose for a minute I was dead wrong on Peterson, and he wasn’t using persuasion to sway people to the left. What does that have to do with r/K, my analysis of NPD, My perceptions of Trump’s tactics, or anything else. If I was wrong about one, does that mean I will always be wrong about the others?
You are here, so you are smart. You already know that, but you post this, which is clearly a psychological ploy to make me think I am endangering everything I have done here with my readers.
There is something people can see which will change their understanding of everything. I have seen it. Things are far more controlled, for simple purposes of political control, than anyone would believe. They have people out there who work for them, the people you see with a fast rise into the dialog will usually be their’s, and those people will be working to bring everyone under their control. Peterson fits the mold of what I expect to see in one.
My own opinion is Molyneux set out and was so impressive in the role he carved out for himself that he created a niche they never knew existed. They saw this niche, recognized it was out there, and Peterson is their commercialized product designed to be flooded everywhere to mop up potential Molyneux followers before they discover Molyneux. Peterson likely has seen the game, and knows if he plays the role, they will support and reward him.
He might not be official machine. He might just be a wet noodle, afraid of conflict, who happens to espouse the muddled middle position because it is his nature. But my opinion is he probably is official Cabal, he has seen the way the game is played, and he is getting official support.
That’s because you touched on, both, ideas and personality. Motive- especially as a long term pattern- finds some home in personality, of which you elaborated on. You wrote a very long article about this and there is quite a lot to unpack. I am just going to give you a couple examples. Saying DJP runs from a fight is one of a few very strange assertions. He literally rose to prominence for his hotly contested fight against Canadian legal bill C-16. If that wasn’t a fight, I don’t know what is. (And, do understand, this is coming from someone who has, consistently, earned a widespread label as “confrontational.” I enjoy confrontational personalities, of which I have dubbed Peterson.) While it is true that, as a practicing clinical psychologist (whose general, overarching goal is to “engage” people to use their own minds; “helping” them by way of stimulating perspectives which may introduce information that tests theories and/or changes minds) he uses “collaborative discussion” as a tool, which are these open form statements you seem to dislike – it is stated directly in his twitter bio that he frequently posts things he disagrees with, so readers do not misinterpret everything being posted as his own opinion. (Not sure how you missed that.) Peterson was certainly remiss in using Twitter. It is not his format, but I see the value in his approach – and it’s the same approach he has used to sell out arenas. A clinical psychologist who does other people’s thinking entirely for them; beating them to the punch of navigating their own minds – would lean toward the side of enabling, though I’m sure no one would call it such, directly. You are smart enough to know that’s what it would be. People don’t learn through words, they learn through experience. But you weren’t thinking from that stance; you were thinking from the perspective that this is a war, which must be fought. Collaborative discussion, after all, must not be a useful experiential tool where subversion is the game; not in its honest form, at least. Fair enough, I understand your methodology. But he is a teacher. In failing to understand his methodology, it makes me think your research has been incomplete. It also makes me question your overall process for sussing out threat. I don’t think it was thorough. And, while you regularly post quite a lot of information, so one could certainly forgive an occasional oversight in thoroughness… you presented it so strongly that any pre-existing, surface opposition that hasn’t done as much research into Peterson’s interesting mind as I have wouldn’t have caught the foundational inaccuracies. There are many things on your site of which I am not as well versed in. Now I’m wondering if there are as many foundational inaccuracies in those.
In the end, it doesn’t matter. It is my experience, not your words, which will extract snippets of meaning, from available information, in meaningful ways. But, from one technician to another: I thought you should know.
Fanboys make me sick. He’s controlling you by making you think it’s your own idea – that is what shrinks do. He wouldn’t debate Millennial Woes for his full fee, he’s a coward. Most of his guffawing is false 60s Jungian claptrap, if you actually read Jung instead of trusting him in Youtube videos namedropping. He isn’t edgy, it’s Standard Boomer rhetoric ending with yet more white male guilt about the Holocaust. Smart people do learn through words, read some real books, he’s an intellectual poseur. Suddenly you dipshits trust a liberal arts teacher… because he has a dick? Are you shitting me? Are you that easy to manipulate? His method is lies, men can seduce other men into bullshit, see all cults. Ted Bundy was a psych major, they view all humans as diseased and with their messiah complex, they happen to have the cure! What a coincidence. This is like when there’s a shit film and people say you’re too dumb to appreciate it. We appreciate it very well, we just see more angles. He’s profiteering from you father-abandoned morons like a male Anita Sarkeesian with only slightly less insane politics that was common sense ten years ago (sexual dimorphism exists, wow). That isn’t a genius. A genius would figure out a way to get through the day without anti-suicide tablets.
He’s a shrink, isn’t he? Do you go to a fat guy for diet advice?
Take your meds, he says, knowing they cause permanent brain changes and mess men up? Are you on them too?
He’s a globalist invested in diversity and he doesn’t care about you. Self help guru easy money, you’re a mark.
Look up Bruce Charlton, Sir Scruton or John Haidt if you want real intellectuals. They’re hardly mentioned by the media, because they’re smart.
Get off your high horse, it’s actually an ass. Peterson is considered stupid by people in his field. He’s had decades to prove himself. Don’t appeal to authority here.
You’re trying so hard to seem smart by using words you don’t understand, your thought process is fully emotional you bloody sperg, it isn’t a “methodology”, who told you that’s an appropriate word? The closest is script in psychoanalysis, which, plot twist, isn’t original cognition!
If he were helping men, his books would be pulled. He doesn’t list his Patreon supporters. He moves his own goalposts, intellectually dishonest. He STILL HAS HIS JOB.
He talks down to you like a narcissistic mother! Clean your room! Do the dishes! OBEY.
Jordan Shekelson is giving you sermons, he’s your priest now. Hide in your clean room crying about oppression, sad sack. God forbid you take action like a man and stop blaming the world.
Your ad hominem to defend a logical breakdown of a “thought experiment” is telling, shill.
Sorry to hear about your narcissistic mother.
“Look up Bruce Charlton, Sir Scruton or John Haidt if you want real intellectuals. They’re hardly mentioned by the media, because they’re smart.”
The biggest eye opener is traveling through the alt-right, and seeing brighter, more engaging figures, who change you for the better more than anyone in the public eye ever could, and realizing you will never see any of them promoted, or even mentioned by the mass media – and that once they are denied that support, they will tend to be trapped as voices in the wilderness.
There are hundreds of those guys out there. Bill Whittle makes better videos than anything on Fox News. Vox Day books. Molyneux commentary. Each should have smoked their opposition by now, and yet they are still battling.
The second big eye opener is that the big names the MSM promotes, and who are apparently making millions, often have less traffic than many on the alt-right. Their twitter followers are decorations someone paid for, and their fans are not what you think.
“You are watching a movie” may mean, you are not supposed to be involved in the script.
Molyneux was careless. Haidt I am aware of, because Peterson discusses him, often, as do many of the others on the circuit. Which defies the logic that one is somehow promoted and one isn’t; one is preferred and one is blacklisted. It is my understanding that Haidt is fairly well known. I’ve only heard his name 1,000 times. He has a new book out that I hear someone mention nearly every single day. And it’s my understanding his last book was successful, as well. I don’t think its worth getting into the difference of style and marketing of the two men; but there is that, as well. I can tell you that both of their messages reach slightly different audiences, as per their personal preferences. There are a lot of musicians, by the by, who feel they are great musicians. There are a lot of musicians that really are great musicians. That doesn’t mean they connect with audiences or have crossover audiences large enough to make them mainstream. Many great musicians never see success. From the room. Let alone the world.
Here is the thing. Just a few years ago, I saw the world you did. That is the world you have been trained to accept. It is a world where things will always remain chaotic and unorganized because conspiracies are bad, and nobody should ever engage in them. As a result, it is a world where the smartest rise the highest, everything is merit based, and anyone can do anything, if they put their mind to it.
What you have been (and I was) blinded to is the fact that this world is still Darwinian and there are no rules. Internalize that fundamental law. Then realize that those who conspire are the ones who rise most quickly to the top – especially when the vast majority have been trained effectively to not only assume that conspiracies almost never happen, but they are actively trained to denigrate those few free thinkers who imply people might conspire to gain unfair advantage. And once those who conspire rise to the top, those who conspire more, and more fully, and try to take over even more are the ones who dominate.
Once you go there, begin to look at how you would run things, if you were operating by that law. How would you corrupt institutions? What things would you take over first? How might you be attacked? How would you guard against that, and what would you take over to prevent that attack from happening? What is your biggest risk? As you go down that path, you will begin to realize you see things which only make sense in the context of that world.
Once you go there, dismissing who succeeded as one of the vagaries of who “connected with an audience,” becomes impossible, because you realize people go with what they hear on the radio, and if they never hear it, it might as well never have happened.
Now if that all is true (and I have seen many things which convince me it undoubtedly is), then what you see in the environment around is controlled, organized, and presented to control how you think – the only question is, to what degree. I suspect this has been going on a long time, and it is far more controlled than you would ever believe.
I wasn’t questioning said conspiracy; I was questioning your role in it.
Here’s the other thing. If I gave you a pencil, but you didn’t know what it was (lets say you live in a remote tribe) and, thus, used it to go around stabbing people… it wouldn’t make you intellectually dominant, or elite. Perhaps in the tragic, short term sense – yes. But what it would really make you is guilty of retarding civilization by never understanding such a thing was intended for the “written word.” The written word is a primary driver of what has built Nations and civilizations, alike. Not being aware of that fact would retard civilization, not advance it. So is that violence, truly, Darwin at play? Technically, yes, but in live action – much more complicated an answer exists.s Misusing tools and resources doesn’t make even the conspiratorial “elite” and it certainly doesn’t make anyone highly productive. It makes them psychologically retarded; focused on low yield, short term workarounds incorrectly dubbed “magnificence successes.” If they weren’t retarded, they’d have 100x over what they have; what they’ve gained by improper use of resource and inefficient psychological organizing. In short: they are insane. Insane minds are not effectively organized; they are organized to hide from themselves. That is their primary goal. You think that’s a system no one can beat? That system isn’t even focused on success. Of course it can be beat. Anyone whose primary goal is not success (because the much larger psychological goal is far more muddled) can be beat. The fact it is, instead, worshiped – en masse – is the problem. Of course DJP can make it through the ranks. It’s not that hard to do. It’s just hard to understand. At first. Particularly if there happens to be other people that claim to not understand the psychological inefficiency contained within the preexisting structure. Whether they make that claim via happenstance or direct intent, is not always easy to discern. It would be highly convenient to have an affiliate of such psychologically retarded ploys, who happens to have a large audience, go around making sure everyone thinks it’s even more advanced than it is. Easy to buy as authentic if that person is not highly intelligent; harder to buy as authentic if that person is arguably so.
P.s. – if you want to do more than “suspect” how long it’s been going on – go read, thoroughly, a book called The Devil’s Chessboard. Brush up on your psych, check your email… then, maybe, we can go at it, again. You know. For the sake of the world, etc etc.
As an add on: you might, also, find it curious to know that there is only one group of people who misconstrue DJP’s personality type in the specific ways that you do. (It would be downright bizarre if bizarre was a thing that existed.) DJP just being the stand in, at this moment; in reality, multiple people possess an arguably similar personality. As previously mentioned, though not expanded upon, it’s a personality that I look for. Which means I am, both, prone to finding it – as well as – as a by product- those who oppose it. But “oppose” is too strong of a word; that’s there, too, but to give it depth, lets say “don’t understand it.” The reason that matters is scientific. If you lacked the ability to see a certain color, we would know it comes down to a certain process of your eye. So what is it about this particular group of widely assorted, very intelligent people whose particular process is consistently blind to a particular personality type? Haha. Well, who taught them how to use their eyes? I think you can see what I’m accusing you of. So it won’t hurt my feelings if you don’t clear this additional comment to your site. Now, perhaps I am wrong. I certainly could be. But I do know that we both know the proper value of a confrontation, here and there. Which means I’m quite confident that you won’t hold it against me.
You are not uninteresting, yourself. Which means that, like Peterson- whether you are right or wrong is of far less consequence to an advocate of interesting minds.
Our cognitive styles are not meshing well. I am not seeing a lot of what you are seeing, and I am not sure here that you are seeing what I am seeing.
I do not know how much you know about what is going on, but I will say there is something you can see that will alter how you view the entire world, and all the information it presents to you. Q says, “You are watching a movie.” More often than anyone would believe, you are. If a lot of people see it, they will control how it is presented. Ever seen a bad word about Peterson in the media mentions? That whole intellectual Dark Web thing, that glorified those guys, was presented from the same people who think anons on /pol are toxic sewer dwellers.
If you haven’t seen it, then you take Peterson’s approach at face value. He is a teacher presenting ideas to let people find their own way to their own truth, and he is doing it all honestly.
But if you have seen it, then you realize the level of control of the dialog we are exposed to is incredible. The manpower is incredible. Very rarely does anyone rise to a level of prominence naturally, and those who do are exceptional. I’ve seen it, so I am always wondering if the people who rise really fast are supported, and if that support came because they were playing the game. Peterson has gotten a lot of mentions in the outlets which the machine uses to legitimize the people who will pull their weight for the machine.
Molyneux is a good counter example. Why do they mention Peterson, and not Molyneux, whose audience was bigger IIRC, than Petersons, earlier than Peterson’s?
As a result of all that, I also understand that a “confrontation” like Peterson’s may not be a real confrontation. Paranoid I know. But you haven’t seen what I have. Just look at how they comped that Q forum on Reddit, and deleted all the harmless messages trying to put out fights and unify everyone. They took over Reddit, and were trying to make people fight each other. And that wasn’t spontaneous. Somebody planned that. And then they killed it.
Furthermore, there is no greater sign to me of someone who has a deep desire to avoid confrontation than the “they all suck” assertion, which lets you step away from the battle for “moral/intellectual” reasons. I see the battle with Kavanaugh as a clear good vs bad battle, and I do not buy that someone who sees it muddled is smarter than me, or who is portraying it as muddled to help others find their way. That he was massaging it away from Kavanaugh at that critical moment using persuasion makes me all the more suspicious.
I think as things play out we will find out the lines were more clearly defined, between good and evil than we would believe.
I also saw this affirmed by his story of running from a fight when he was younger. I have, from a very early age, fought almost reflexively when challenged. I couldn’t not do it, except when I was younger if the opponent was younger or smaller than me. So to me, that was something deep in Peterson’s mind which I am quite certain he will still have floating in there.
So I don’t see his willingness to seize a convenient issue to argue to get publicity, which could even be arranged with some sort of agent for publicity, as the same confrontational attitude that will burn in over a principle which I think will yield a more pure moral conclusion. I’ve known the guys who would burn in, and I have known the guys who would flee, even as their friend was taking a beating. I don’t see Peterson hanging around. But that is just a gut feel.
Seeing him use persuasion to seed the idea that Kavanaugh is somehow at least not totally indefensible, and should step down because the opinions of the left are so important and he is so tainted, bugs my ass. I don’t see how that is heling people find their way to truth. Maybe he lacks moral clarity, maybe he lacks the balls to embrace conflict, or maybe (especially given his meteoric rise), he was doing it purposefully because that is how you get more mentions, sell more books, and eventually become a full on powerhouse.
I have my own cognitive style, which works exceedingly well for some things, but I do not see what you are saying here at all, and I have read it a few times closely. You may be seeing something clearly due to your cognitive style, and assuming it is so clear I see it, but you will have to give a very basic explanation for me to understand. What am I doing? Or what is it you are accusing me of?
And please describe this difficult-to-see cognitive style you see, what halmarks you see in it, and how my eyes were clouded to not see it. As basic as possible, if you could. I am exceedingly curious how you see things from your perspective.
Sorry, but you do indeed sound paranoid as hell. Jordan Peterson is quite obviously his own man. His rise was not the consequence of some dark conspiracy….but rather the result of years of personal and political reflection…..and the recent mass receptivity to his message. His Kavanaugh gambit was ill-conceived. He deserves whatever repudiation he’s getting. He isn’t a real conservative….and he’s proven it. But to insist he’s a left-wing plant to lead us all astray is….incomprehensible.
Molyneux is close personal friends with Gorilla Dick Cernovich, with the Muslim trap wife, who threatens to sue everyone and lives off his ex-wife’s alimony like a bitch. Stefan’s controlled op and stopped really discussing r/K (he was too mild anyway) as well as other really political science. His IQ posts are cringe Bell Curve tier, 30 years old shit. I’ve passed him valuable science and every time got ignored! EVERY TIME. Most of his vids are fearmongering distractions and not productive, it’s 3/5 videos telling men not to marry and have kids (but only white men). Despite how he’s married with kids. Oh but shame about birth rates, right? Right. Mentions female divorce risk factors but never male, because we need people to take responsibility for their own decisions, talks about single mothers and doesn’t condemn the deadbeats who left (only in passing).
The coward Anon won’t explain all the stuff he “knows” by magic, since he doesn’t know and is fronting to feel superior. I’ve seen so many of those types trying to act Superior Intellect it’s sad.
Narcissists repeat smart keywords but misuse them. He’s a low IQ narc.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Schizophasia
Bye, Felicia.
“Never doubt our opposition is evil, and they relentlessly seek the destruction of good – and that means you.”
Notch, the billionaire creator of Minecraft, said as much today. And the top-voted comment on The_Donald’s story about it is this:
“Said it before and will say this again, all this is actually a spiritual battle. Until people realize that they won’t be fighting with the right weapons.”
DEUS VULT
Ephesians 6:10-20
Let us not forget that Paul’s chains were literal.
I must admit, back when the “grab them by the pussy” tape surfaced, I thought, this is it, Trump is finished, he’s lost the women vote. Which brings up the question: If women vote down any man who speaks the truth and believe all rape accusations without evidence, what happens next?
In Sweden, the result is them, their seven-year-old daughters, and their eighty-year-old mothers getting gang-raped by low-IQ immigrants while white men do nothing to stop it. Why should we men risk life and limb to protect women who hate us from people they voted to let into the country?
Of course, the Left only pretended to in-group white women lest they marry white men and breed large, happy, conservative white families. Now that white women seem to be breaking for Trump, the mask is slipping and Leftists are starting to vent about how evil and racist white women are.
Sir you’ll be relieved to hear white women broke for Trump in 2016. And at least in my own circles, completely sided with Kavanaugh. The myth of the nation of cat ladies is some grade A #FakeNews, I’m proud to say. (The Swedes are just all wimps, female or otherwise)
He isn’t really asking, he’s a misogynistic narc looking for an excuse for his cowardice.
When was the last time he risked “life and limb” for anything? These babies whine about how their brave grandfathers got drafted for WW2, those real men were proud to serve their country instead of hiding behind a keyboard crying about the oppression of porn and video game life.
The SJWs cover the other side, misandristic narcs.
Either you want a healthy West (of men AND women cooperating) or the idea of being nice and prosocial makes them sick and they’re the anti-natal, anti-nuclear family enemy. I see these anti-white male and anti-white woman shills all the time and they want us DIVIDED. Happy families make them reee.
Never see them complaining about the Sexual Revolution though, and the need to reverse that, for all their complaints about (female) sluts. What conservative?
You make me sick Dave.
There are women in the military right now protecting you and rape isn’t just male/female, nor is every accusation false. A lot of male military suicides are from shame about being raped or tortured.
We protect innocent people in the First World because it’s the right thing to do. A Democrat-voting soldier will still go to battle for the likes of you. Women aren’t the problem, you can’t push responsibility for dislike to someone else, women are voting for family. It’s a DUTY, it isn’t a choice you can worm out of with versions of “they don’t like me” rage-quitting. You think women haven’t been part of Q too? The West is half female, like it or leave.
If you don’t like (white) women that’s fine, but it’s your opinion and it’s missing the point of civilization. If men and women hate each other, we’re all dead. Be nice.
Peterson’s problem is he thinks he can reason with evil. he thinks he is smarter than satan.
if you scratch deep enough you will see he wouldn’t take up arms to defend himself.
I agree re: Kavanaugh. I am worried that he may still have some squishyness to him due to his hiring of a full female staff. He still has that squishy-right instinct to try to please the left by showing them just how non-sexist he is, by God! I mean come on, hiring on merit alone would not produce this outcome. So he’s signaling, really hard. That’s not a good sign.
It’s been pointed out that he did this before this character assassination, so there’s a possibility that he’s been broken of this, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Time will tell.
He’s hiring on competence but also trolling them.
[…] https://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/jordan-peterson-walks-back-his-kavanaugh-tweet/ “This guy is playing the game to try and become a pied piper on the right, while pushing us left to get media mentions and Cabal support:” 10/10 “Now he tries to mitigate the damage. But he still got it out there like he meant it at a critical moment. And he defended the idea as plausible afterward. And now he is setting himself up as a thought-experimenter, who can never be held responsible for any future tweet that supports evil at critical moments, because it was just part of his process. I’d love to see a real time graph of his books sales, and see if there was a sudden spike of bulk sales right after that tweet. […]