• Is Jordan Peterson a Cuck?

  • This is no safe-space, snowflake.
This is no safe-space, snowflake.
 #103175  by JohnnyP
 Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:57 pm
Peterson is still a liberal. While not as bad as a sjw, pc regressive cuck. They're the ones who fomented the rise of those shit social movements

PS I like turtles
 #103176  by PlusCaChange
 Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:59 pm
I read his '12 Rules for Life', it was mostly OK, at least the part where his life experience led him to conclusions about human nature. His interpretation of myth is less useful, too much like finding wisdom in a Rorschach inkblot.

The only thing I fundamentally disagreed with is his value system is still ultimately based on pleasure/pain. I think any such system is fundamentally flawed and the flaws will bring it down.
 #103180  by SkeetDixon
 Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:29 pm
SkeetDixon wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:21 am

For those who think Peterson is a 9D redpilled chessmaster, think about the end-game of his philosophy, if implemented. He wants young men to become responsible and mature, self realized (this is good) BUT only at an individual level. Any attempt by these young men to group together and change society is "regressive" and "dangerous" according to Peterson. This man outright tells young men not to organize and advocate for themselves. So think deeply, what is the end goal of his individualist philosophy?

Having self-confidence and a nice clean room - within a multicultral, atomized (formerly white) country wherein you are the most hated minority.
So the question remains, is Jordan Peterson a Cuck?

On one hand, he is a stalwart against Cultural Marxism and its advances. That is to be respected. We must give him credit for fending off these wild Marxists in the media, academia, and government that have been operating unfettered for decades. How he handled the Kathy Newman interview was commendable as was his defense against gender pronoun bill C-16.

But why is Jordan Peterson given such a platform in the global media? The Jewish gate-keepers don't make mistakes. They are in business to make money foremost and to control the dissemination of ideas secondly. Simply put, he's good for business, and his ideology does not challenge the status-quo in any meaningful way. They use him to stoke controversy and sell papers.

Peterson's ideology is what makes him a Cuck. People of European descent have been functioning primarily as individuals with loose nationalistic and non-existent racial ties for the past 60 years. What has it gotten them? It's allowed every single country of European descent to fall prey to Marxist ideology and infiltration at every single facet of society, most importantly, in regards to immigration and cultural identity.

Decades of propaganda and Marxist control have turned White nations into third-world dumping grounds. The demographic changes guarantee that Whites will be dispossessed of their own countries in as little as two generations. EVERY White country WILL be dispossessed eventually. The powers that be even have the audacity to frame the mass influx of third-world peoples as necessary and favorable to host nations. A nation's natural defenses against such subversion have been neutralized by the Marxist takeover of the State, media, and academia.

These natural defenses could be re-activated. This would require that White's not only acknowledge their impending demise, but also collectively act against it, keyword "collectively".

This is why Jordan Peterson is a Cuck. His ideology is one that hyper-exaggerates the importance of the individual, despite knowing full-well this has failed White people and nations of European descent. It's like fire-proofing your house while you watch the rest of the neighborhood burn down. It's time to start thinking about the neighborhood. It's time for Whites to start thinking collectively before it's too late.

It's no wonder Jordan Peterson is the public darling he is. Peterson is getting rich by being a good Shabbos goy. He has a massive following that is meant to lead Whites away from any sort of racial consciousness.
HolidayFriday liked this
 #103193  by HolidayFriday
 Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:37 pm
Jordan Peterson wrote:The radical left seem to regard the world as a kindergarten contest where people are randomly awarded gold stars and some people happen to have more gold stars than others because they have shinier hats or something.

They don't understand that a huge amount of what we might call power is associated with a tremendous amount of resposiblity - that it's also difficult to maintain.

They seem to feel that material riches is an untrameled reward that isn't associated with resposiblity or work or anything like that.

It's partly because most of them are very low in concienciousness. That's one of the predictors to radical Liberal, radical left - of idiological possession.
Well, I can see why you'd hate him Kocher, but he does make a certain amount of sense.

I don't understand where the Liberal left would lean in the exact opposite direction of what skeet was saying, where instead of white people having a collective responsibility to override the issue of anti-white racism that white people should collectively be blamed for any sort of privilege they may have.
 #103249  by PlusCaChange
 Sun Feb 11, 2018 5:19 am
Consider that within a hundred years at most, people will be choosing the character and appearance of their children. Those who refuse to do so on moral or some other grounds will simply be left in the dust by those who do. None of this racial stuff matter a bit. It will be a curious episode of history to our great grandchildren.
 #103271  by almostapathetic
 Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:55 am
PlusCaChange wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 5:19 am
Consider that within a hundred years at most, people will be choosing the character and appearance of their children. Those who refuse to do so on moral or some other grounds will simply be left in the dust by those who do. None of this racial stuff matter a bit. It will be a curious episode of history to our great grandchildren.
Well of course the racial stuff wouldn't matter if the first part of what you said is true. No one would ever have little nappy-headed or slanty-eyed ones.
 #103287  by PlusCaChange
 Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:13 am
almostapathetic wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:55 am
PlusCaChange wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 5:19 am
Consider that within a hundred years at most, people will be choosing the character and appearance of their children. Those who refuse to do so on moral or some other grounds will simply be left in the dust by those who do. None of this racial stuff matter a bit. It will be a curious episode of history to our great grandchildren.
Well of course the racial stuff wouldn't matter if the first part of what you said is true. No one would ever have little nappy-headed or slanty-eyed ones.
There is no question that it will be possible and being possible it will be done. People in the West will probably choose the way shown in the movie Gattaca, where children are genetically yours, they are just the best combination of traits you could have had if you had 100,000 children. In China I suspect they will design people.
Chosing their character? Fucking nerd
A couple of years back I was listening to NPR interview a scientist about the latest research into the debate over nature or nurture. The (liberal naturally) interviewer wanted a hard number to characterize the contribution of genes versus experience and the researcher was reluctant. He repeatedly explained that genes and the environment had a complex interaction, blah, blah. She finally pressed him to give a simple characterization for the audience so he said. "OK, I'd say 90/10"

Five seconds of silence.

"you mean 90..."

"90 percent nature 10% nurture."

End of interview. Not the answer she wanted to hear.