What makes you say he is controlled opposition? Despite going to church hundreds of times, he's the only one who got me to read the Bible with open eyes and ears. How is that a bad thing, exactly?
This is what the massively-downvoted poster above was getting at. (You see this phenomena everywhere around you once it "clicks". Politics, entertainment, religion, sports. You're strung along following electroplated heroes promoted into your attention-span who will then implode on cue when needed.)
""Juden Peterstein" has been a meme for quite some time now."
Is it? First I've heard of it.
My criticism of him comes from an entirely different angle.
(And as far as I am concerned, all neo-Nazi-esque groups are controlled fronts. The Deep State / Cabal doesn't care about communism, national-socialism, Fabianism, Jews, or whites; everyone is recruitable, everyone is expendable. For them, it's all a big game of 'let's you and him fight' while I sell both of you morons lots of weapons, making sure I have plenty of controlling video of everyone committing all sorts of crimes, and use your antics for explanations of what happened to the stock-market when the tape was painted the way I wanted.)
I've only heard of it because about a 1 year ago, someone showed up on /r/KiA2 who started calling him that. He happened to be a total psycho, as one would expect from someone posting such things.
It's not as if it's incredible common, because for that one guy, there were 100 other Stormfags posting nonsense like 'early life' and 'NOTICING'.
My criticism of him comes from an entirely different angle.
Same, I find the Jungian stuff to be totally unpersuasive to say the least. Everything that isn't that, I rather like.
You make a good point. You can't expect every expert to talk about everything in one book, or even ever. Experts only really talk about things they know well, which is why they get paid to be experts.
The way you figure what a person is about is this technique: COMPARE WHAT THEY CANNOT TALK ABOUT vs WHAT THEY CAN TALK ABOUT.
So:
he cannot talk about jews despite the fact that gulag archipelago thrust was the jew hatred of whites
he cannot talk about any of the other groups participating in in inter group competition, particularly muslims
he cannot talk about race and genetic differences between races
he cannot talk about in group preference
he cannot ever talk about the individual as part of the group, he only talks about the individual
he cannot talk about immigration
But:
he goes out of his way to say things like, you cannot take pride in your civilization because it wasn't built by you it was built by your ancestors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyoTGmhczcY (around 2:22 mark)
he goes out of his way to emphasize the individual and atomize you.
he goes out of his way to explain that all of your success and happiness comes from individualism.
Notice the trend? Group identity bad, individualism good.
It's a slight of hand magic trick in 100 000 ponderous words or 30 years worth of lectures. Veeeeeery slow and methodical.
The presupposition driving Peterson is that WW2 was driven by in group preference and in group thinking so the solution is to keep propagandizing individualism and atomization and to keep groups of people in the west from getting together.
You will notice he doesn't go to India, China or Africa to preach this. He only does this in western countries.
Of course, individualism and group membership are two sides of the same coin. The individual exists BECAUSE of the group success, one is inseparable from the other. Individualism is important for the success of the group, success of the group is important for the success of individuals. As well, human brains are not single processing units, our brains are a set of subsystems, some very old, some very young, some highly co-related to other systems some less so. What this means is that we have parts of our brain that are dominant when we are individuals and other parts that are dominant when we are in groups ... this is why you are one person when you are alone BUT YOU ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT when you are in a group. Because you are a different person in a group, a different part of your brain with a different personality is driving you in that situation.
So, he has provided us with a great deal of insight and important information in a VERY VERY VERY NARROW WAY. Which is exacly what we want, we want precision.
But there is english on his queball. On the one hand, he cannot talk about certain things because he would literally get him self killed. On the other, the human mind is good at picking out patterns and if you ever felt there was something ooooooooddddly wrong with what he was saying, well its becaue of the list above: he is DELIBERATELY leaving out information and massaging the message.
You can use this is the technique to evaluate everyone, even here on win forums. It's a great tool.
I think I tend to lean on the individualists side, as I don't feel that the offspring is responsible for the sins of their fathers. I also don't think they are responsible for the successes of their fathers. I would just disagree with him on having pride in your people/country. I just don't view him in my mind as a politics character and I suppose the answer is "bro you're on KIA2 of course we look at things politically first and foremost", but, he's not very interesting to me politically. I like him for his religious stuff or profesionally for self authoring, and it's just so strange watching people get so heated around the topic of him.
Overall I at least see where you're coming from groups vs individuals. I just suppose I do lay more on his side of things. I was raised LDS and they have an article of faith that I didn't understand as a child that I think is the demarcation line that makes sense to me on that topic.
“We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression”
Especially as someone who has sinned plenty during his lifetime, I have enough reasons that I myself can damn myself over, I don't need the guilt of every sin that my fore-fathers committed laid at my feet, and while I am literally in awe and have a deep reverence for what my fore-fathers did and for which I will always be thankful for, my honest conviction about what sort of responsibility or relationship we have with the past was what woke me up from being a lefist a long time ago. I wasn't about to repent for something I didn't do as I was already rather busy trying to make amends for my actions. The past is a source of pride and inspiration, but I don't feel any ownership over their actions, only that I should emulate the best of them.
That's the trick. The trick is to get you to think it is more one vs the other and that you have a choice. This isn't so at all. Individualism vs ingroup are there and present all the time with every action and every inaction you ever take.
You CANNOT take an action that either DOESN'T require the group or DOESN'T affect the group. It is utterly IMPOSSIBLE for the individual to exist, act and survive without the group.
Every action you take REQUIRES resources acquired and provisioned to you by the group. Simultaneously, every action you take either ADDS or TAKES away from the net / net resources of the group.
Lastly, your BIRTH / EXISTENCE is EXPLICITLY an expression of the ingroups existence and success.
I mean I agree, the only thing is that the only groups that have static boundaries are families. Nations, Races, and Religions are always drifting and changing, sometimes quickly, usually slowly, but still.
Huge JP fan here (though I haven't listened to him much lately - the IDW has become as a whole very cringeworthy to me now). I have never seen this before.
In his defense, publicly speaking about the JQ is risky, especially for such a large public figure. Even if he answered thoughtfully and in good faith, it would be taken out of context and him and his family would recieve 1000x more hell than they've already received. Would you talk about the JQ if you were JBP? I am not sure if I would.
I'd probably be more willing to say "I can't honestly answer that without risking my loved ones" instead of just sidestepping it entirely when it's central to 90% of what he talks about. He constantly brings up the last century, but it's always the Nahzeeees, and virtually never the communists.
Ah, that fills out the picture. I really hope 200 Years Together gets fully translated one day. I'm on Vol 2 out of 3 of The Gulag Archipelago and I'm certainly interested in what else he had to say, even if he wrote it far after the events had transpired.
What makes you say he is controlled opposition? Despite going to church hundreds of times, he's the only one who got me to read the Bible with open eyes and ears. How is that a bad thing, exactly?
That comment is literally oozing “shill” I would ignore it.
Obviously a leftist got triggered by the use of his name.
"Juden Peterstein" has been a meme for quite some time now. Not saying I agree, I just don't think the dude above is a leftist shill
People who say that are leftist/Stormfag shills.
Required reading:
"...The same performance art can be seen in every single Christian circle. The enemy relentlessly seeks to elevate the weak, the stupid, and the fraudulent in order to obstruct the genuine leaders from rising...."
This is what the massively-downvoted poster above was getting at. (You see this phenomena everywhere around you once it "clicks". Politics, entertainment, religion, sports. You're strung along following electroplated heroes promoted into your attention-span who will then implode on cue when needed.)
""Juden Peterstein" has been a meme for quite some time now."
Is it? First I've heard of it.
My criticism of him comes from an entirely different angle.
(And as far as I am concerned, all neo-Nazi-esque groups are controlled fronts. The Deep State / Cabal doesn't care about communism, national-socialism, Fabianism, Jews, or whites; everyone is recruitable, everyone is expendable. For them, it's all a big game of 'let's you and him fight' while I sell both of you morons lots of weapons, making sure I have plenty of controlling video of everyone committing all sorts of crimes, and use your antics for explanations of what happened to the stock-market when the tape was painted the way I wanted.)
I've only heard of it because about a 1 year ago, someone showed up on /r/KiA2 who started calling him that. He happened to be a total psycho, as one would expect from someone posting such things.
It's not as if it's incredible common, because for that one guy, there were 100 other Stormfags posting nonsense like 'early life' and 'NOTICING'.
Same, I find the Jungian stuff to be totally unpersuasive to say the least. Everything that isn't that, I rather like.
You make a good point. You can't expect every expert to talk about everything in one book, or even ever. Experts only really talk about things they know well, which is why they get paid to be experts.
The way you figure what a person is about is this technique: COMPARE WHAT THEY CANNOT TALK ABOUT vs WHAT THEY CAN TALK ABOUT.
So:
he cannot talk about jews despite the fact that gulag archipelago thrust was the jew hatred of whites
he cannot talk about any of the other groups participating in in inter group competition, particularly muslims
he cannot talk about race and genetic differences between races
he cannot talk about in group preference
he cannot ever talk about the individual as part of the group, he only talks about the individual
he cannot talk about immigration
But:
he goes out of his way to say things like, you cannot take pride in your civilization because it wasn't built by you it was built by your ancestors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyoTGmhczcY (around 2:22 mark)
he goes out of his way to emphasize the individual and atomize you.
he goes out of his way to explain that all of your success and happiness comes from individualism.
Notice the trend? Group identity bad, individualism good.
It's a slight of hand magic trick in 100 000 ponderous words or 30 years worth of lectures. Veeeeeery slow and methodical.
The presupposition driving Peterson is that WW2 was driven by in group preference and in group thinking so the solution is to keep propagandizing individualism and atomization and to keep groups of people in the west from getting together.
You will notice he doesn't go to India, China or Africa to preach this. He only does this in western countries.
Of course, individualism and group membership are two sides of the same coin. The individual exists BECAUSE of the group success, one is inseparable from the other. Individualism is important for the success of the group, success of the group is important for the success of individuals. As well, human brains are not single processing units, our brains are a set of subsystems, some very old, some very young, some highly co-related to other systems some less so. What this means is that we have parts of our brain that are dominant when we are individuals and other parts that are dominant when we are in groups ... this is why you are one person when you are alone BUT YOU ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT when you are in a group. Because you are a different person in a group, a different part of your brain with a different personality is driving you in that situation.
So, he has provided us with a great deal of insight and important information in a VERY VERY VERY NARROW WAY. Which is exacly what we want, we want precision.
But there is english on his queball. On the one hand, he cannot talk about certain things because he would literally get him self killed. On the other, the human mind is good at picking out patterns and if you ever felt there was something ooooooooddddly wrong with what he was saying, well its becaue of the list above: he is DELIBERATELY leaving out information and massaging the message.
You can use this is the technique to evaluate everyone, even here on win forums. It's a great tool.
I think I tend to lean on the individualists side, as I don't feel that the offspring is responsible for the sins of their fathers. I also don't think they are responsible for the successes of their fathers. I would just disagree with him on having pride in your people/country. I just don't view him in my mind as a politics character and I suppose the answer is "bro you're on KIA2 of course we look at things politically first and foremost", but, he's not very interesting to me politically. I like him for his religious stuff or profesionally for self authoring, and it's just so strange watching people get so heated around the topic of him.
Overall I at least see where you're coming from groups vs individuals. I just suppose I do lay more on his side of things. I was raised LDS and they have an article of faith that I didn't understand as a child that I think is the demarcation line that makes sense to me on that topic.
“We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression”
Especially as someone who has sinned plenty during his lifetime, I have enough reasons that I myself can damn myself over, I don't need the guilt of every sin that my fore-fathers committed laid at my feet, and while I am literally in awe and have a deep reverence for what my fore-fathers did and for which I will always be thankful for, my honest conviction about what sort of responsibility or relationship we have with the past was what woke me up from being a lefist a long time ago. I wasn't about to repent for something I didn't do as I was already rather busy trying to make amends for my actions. The past is a source of pride and inspiration, but I don't feel any ownership over their actions, only that I should emulate the best of them.
That's the trick. The trick is to get you to think it is more one vs the other and that you have a choice. This isn't so at all. Individualism vs ingroup are there and present all the time with every action and every inaction you ever take.
You CANNOT take an action that either DOESN'T require the group or DOESN'T affect the group. It is utterly IMPOSSIBLE for the individual to exist, act and survive without the group.
Every action you take REQUIRES resources acquired and provisioned to you by the group. Simultaneously, every action you take either ADDS or TAKES away from the net / net resources of the group.
Lastly, your BIRTH / EXISTENCE is EXPLICITLY an expression of the ingroups existence and success.
You literally have no say in this whatsoever.
I mean I agree, the only thing is that the only groups that have static boundaries are families. Nations, Races, and Religions are always drifting and changing, sometimes quickly, usually slowly, but still.
"What makes you say he is controlled opposition?"
You are not promoted by the establishment unless you're controlled-opposition. And how are you promoted? They talk about you constantly.
It's all political kayfabe.
Well it depends on what you mean by God...
He's most likely not, but there's things that get people suspicious. I think the biggest thing is that he wont call out the jew. Here's the clip most people who call him a jewish shill post.
Huge JP fan here (though I haven't listened to him much lately - the IDW has become as a whole very cringeworthy to me now). I have never seen this before.
In his defense, publicly speaking about the JQ is risky, especially for such a large public figure. Even if he answered thoughtfully and in good faith, it would be taken out of context and him and his family would recieve 1000x more hell than they've already received. Would you talk about the JQ if you were JBP? I am not sure if I would.
Ok then.
I'd probably be more willing to say "I can't honestly answer that without risking my loved ones" instead of just sidestepping it entirely when it's central to 90% of what he talks about. He constantly brings up the last century, but it's always the Nahzeeees, and virtually never the communists.
Wrong, he talks about the communists as much if not moreso than the nazis. I have watched all of his lectures and many of his interviews.
Ah, that fills out the picture. I really hope 200 Years Together gets fully translated one day. I'm on Vol 2 out of 3 of The Gulag Archipelago and I'm certainly interested in what else he had to say, even if he wrote it far after the events had transpired.