Jordan Peterson: (Most) Everything He Says Is True


I really hate this guy mostly because he’s a reactionary, but honestly, almost every single thing he says is true.
He’s right that it’s insane that you can talk to a female student behind closed doors anymore. That’s insane! Way to go feminists! Way to backwards, bitches!
Sexual impropriety? What the Hell is that? Can you define it? Define it. Define sexual impropriety. See? You can’t. This Orwellian concept has no definition at all. Truth is, sexual impropriety is anything a woman says it is! Isn’t that great? Now we have a real definition we can all live with. I do want to know what his sexual impropriety bullshit charges are though, just out of curiosity.
Right. Women are not as interested in things as men. So women in academia are not going to be as much into those fields that focus on things. Well, that’s obvious! I don’t even think women like ideas very much. The airy world of pure ideation, the realm of the prowling intellectual, is pretty much a male thing. It’s not that women can’t conceptualize this stuff – it’s more that they think it is flat out boring. I have met women with IQ’s very close to mine – I recall one woman with an IQ of 143 – but she simply could not fathom why I would engage in some wild Herculean task of chopping up German into 138 languages. Why in the Hell would you even do that in the first place? Was her attitude. She was just as smart as I was, not one bit less, but her brain worked differently, being a typical female brain. Women are just as smart as we men are, but their brains work differently so they are interested in different things than we are. Which is fine of course. Vive la difference!
Of course, the more women dress up to be sexually attractive, the more they will contribute to sexual harassment (What the Hell is that anyway?) in the workplace. The more women sexualize themselves to make them look sexually enticing to men, the more men are going to be turned on by them, so the more women will interact with them in a sexual manner because they are getting turned on. I mean, it’s not rocket science, right.
And yes, lipstick does in fact mirror the swelling and reddening of the labia during sex. That’s why it exists in the first place. And I believe cheek blush is based on the same thing. And yes, high heels do indeed mimic a sort of estrus in females, more specifically, heels directly sexualize women by making them appear more as they do in the sex act. Which is, after all, why women wear heels in the first place. Of course.
Women are innately competitive, of course. They especially compete for men. Anyone knows that. And they compete on the basis of beauty too. I know this because women told me so. They told me that women dress up for other women, not for men. I never believed it until I heard it from them.
Of course a man has to remove about 90% of himself when he’s around women, particularly in the case of Peterson, a professor who is banned from having any sexual feelings or even thoughts for that matter. I have to do it myself.
Of course politeness trumps truth with women. Any man knows that. Hell, I learned that in high school!
Of course women manipulate men sexually to advance in the workplace. Duh! Anyone knows that.
Of course makeup is sexually provocative, but I do not agree with Peterson that makeup should be banned in the workplace.
Of course there’s a war on masculine behavior among boys. Boys being banned from throwing snowballs is a straight up war on masculinity itself. Even picking up snow off the ground was seen as toxic masculinity. Of course the bad boys didn’t care and broke all of these stupid rules. Only the good boys obeyed the rules not to act masculine. The worst boys, who probably needed to act less masculine, were not deterred at all. So all you are doing is neutering the mildest displays of masculinity in the best of boys, putting at the back of the pack, while shoving the worst boys to the front. Good job feminists! And he’s correct, in such a dispensation (a topsy turvy morality turned upside down Sadean one at that) the worst boys will get the most women and the most psychopathic males will be fathering the most children while the most decent males will father few if any kids. Way to go feminists!
Of course a transwoman is not a real woman! A transwoman is a man who thinks he’s a woman. His delusion that he is a woman is so fixed that he often has surgery to try to turn himself into some sort of a fake woman, but a man is a man is a man. No man can ever be transformed into a woman. Of course not. Why would anyone think a man can be turned into a woman? That’s ridiculous, I mean given our current technology anyway.
Ok this moron Peterson just compared Chairman Mao, of all people, to trans activists! How ridiculous! Mao was a puritan. The single most awful thing about Peterson is his idiotic fanatical anti-Communism. This dumbass has even covered his entire home with socialist realist paintings just to remind himself, every day mind you, even evil those damned Commies are. Anti-Communism is probably the single driving force behind all of Peterson’s intellectual oeuvre. And that’s where he runs right off the cliff, just like Coyote in the cartoons, following his cartoonish Roadrunner boogeyman of Communism right over the edge of all reason and sense.
And this is what I mean when I say this guy is a reactionary and he can go take a long walk on a short pier. Sure, he’s right most of the time facts-wise, but his mind is just oh so wrong. He’s motivated by sheer puerile idiocy and reaction. Take your anti-Communism and shove it up your ass, Jordan.
He follows online PUA’s because he finds them interesting psychologically. Well, they are saying a lot of psychologically interesting things and most of what they say is flat out true. Look. Let’s get real. PUA’s are all about success. Men don’t mess around with BS and get lost in wildernesses of psychological defenses like women do. Men’s whole raison de etre is “do what works, and all else be damned.” Men don’t care what the theory is as long as it works. If it works and it smells like roses, fine. If it works and it smells like ordure, well, you hold your nose and plow forth anyway because if it works it works, stink or not, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.
These PUA’s are absolutely not going to waste any time on bullshit that doesn’t work. That’s something a woman would do. Women would obviously waste endless time on projects that don’t work simply because the ones that did work were so awful. Women would think, “That’s awful, so it can’t possibly work,” and then focus on some feel-good solution that smells like roses but fails every time. Women aren’t concerned with the destination. They’re concerned about the road you take to get there. If it’s a horrible road, they’re not driving on it. They’re taking the scenic route to feel better about themselves, no matter if it gets you anywhere or not.
The idea that these PUA’s would have wasted all these years of intense study on things that don’t work. Men are far too practical for that. These guys conduct nearly controlled double blind studies to test their theories.
And at the end, Peterson violates Godwin’s Law by equating SJW boneheads and fools with literal Nazis. No, Jordan, no. SJW’s are not Nazis. If they are like anyone, they are like Commies, and Commies are not Nazis as you probably think, you silly man.
Peterson gets an 85% rating, but when he’s wrong, good God is he wrong.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

54 thoughts on “Jordan Peterson: (Most) Everything He Says Is True”

  1. Yeah, over-masculinity is a possibility – as you say, feminists are making that the “normal” masculinity. Very bad idea!

  2. “Ok this moron Peterson just compared Chairman Mao, of all people, to trans activists! How ridiculous! Mao was a puritan. The single most awful thing about Peterson is his idiotic fanatical anti-Communism. This dumbass has even covered his entire home with socialist realist paintings just to remind himself, every day mind you, even evil those damned Commies are. Anti-Communism is probably the single driving force behind all of Peterson’s intellectual oeuvre. And that’s where he runs right off the cliff, just like Coyote in the cartoons, following his cartoonish Roadrunner boogeyman of Communism right over the edge of all reason and sense.”
    He ties SJWism (“trans activists”) to Communism in both having the narrative of there only being oppressors and oppressed.
    Communists believed it with regard to those who own capital v. not while SJWs believe it with White males v. everyone else. The philosophical schools where SJWism emerged admit this explicitly.
    This is really not up for debate. However, the problem is when he extends the definition of Communism to mean ‘not libertarian’: presumably because he is on a payroll for deregulation thinktanks or something.

    1. Yeah but I believe in oppressors and oppressed of course as I am a kinda sorta maybe almost a little bit of a Commie, and I hate SJW’s with a passion. So this guy says guys like me created SJW’s? Fuck him.

      1. So what does that mean then? You believe rich people are inherently oppressors who don’t deserve rights but then White men are okay?

        1. We grant the rich rights here in the US and in much of the world. I’m not against it here or in much of the world. Just because someone is an inherent oppressor as all conservatives and the rich are doesn’t mean we can take their rights away. Even scumbuckets like them get rights.
          How are White men inherent oppressors? We don’t have any power anymore anyway? Who are we oppressing. Who are we harming?

  3. “He follows online PUA’s because he finds them interesting psychologically.”
    If you read deeper into his remarks you find he’s quite a cuck in a lot of ways. He basically tells men to roll over and take feminism because ‘young people are too stupid for activism’.
    Also a neocon. Basically a more sincere Ben Shapiro.

    1. and of course (((large investors))) as opposed to revenue have propped up Ben Shapiro’s show and probably Dave Rubin and JP’s as well.
      These guys claim to be redpilled yet are Bush style Republicans. It’s like Breitbart 2.0 or something. #controlledopposition.

      1. he said “wars are not fought for resources” but rather for philosophical reasons. That’s not proof, but then all the people who promote him (Ben Shapiro, American Enterprise Institute, et al) are neocons.

        1. He’s a liar! Of course they are fought for resources! What a lying fucking snake he is. Peterson really is being supported by Shapiro, AEI, etc.? Also it’s spelled (((American Enterprise Institute))). The whole place is Scheming Shlomos from top to bottom.
          Is (((Ben Shapiro))) the young Scheming Shlomo who used to be associated with Breitbart?

      2. “Classic Liberal”= Neocon.
        The whole “Judeo-Christian” shtick is designed by turncoat Zionists to wash their hands of the SJWism they created and integrate seamlessly with the dark enlightenment.
        The depth of the controlled opposition is nuts bro. You should research it. After all, it gave us Donald Trump.

      3. These guys can’t go six seconds without saying the phrase “Judeo-Christian values” or bashing Muslims. And they ignore the anti-Free Speech anti-BDS laws even though “free speech” is supposed to be their pet issue.
        I could go on all day with examples like this.

  4. Check it out:
    “Classic Liberals”= Believe in (((Judeo)))-Christian values, that (((Neocons))) have good intentions and that (((SJWs most egregious sin is supporting Palestinians))).
    Figureheads:
    (((Ben Shapiro)))
    (((David Rubin)))
    Jordan Peterson
    Carl (((Benjamin)))
    Christina Hoff Sommers of the (((American Enterprise Institute))) which previously employed (((John Bolton)))
    Financed by: (((large investors))).
    This is tongue in cheek but these people tend to be neocons and are really not any ideologically different than Dick Cheney all around.

  5. SJW’s and Identity politics are inherently anti leftist and should be considered bourgeois nationalism, for they distract from the class war.
    Having said that the people of Peterson’s ilk are also dangerous, whilst they are completely right when it comes to social governance their economic and religious beliefs are standard right wing lunacy.
    Unfortunately the old mantra of “it’s the economy, stupid” doesn’t seem to hold true anymore. It seem’s their are few on the left who can sound like Peterson when it comes to social governance whilst being leftist economically – until the left in general remove themselves from SJWism and ID Politics they will lose the ideological war.

    1. But SJW is definitely not a form of “bourgeois nationalism” or nationalism of any kind. It’s inherently totally anti-nationalist. Normal nations are founded on families, tribes, ethnic groups. The essence SJW is deconstruction and hatred of everything that makes family and tribe possible (such as the reality of the man-woman difference, the value of caring for your real biological children, the obligations we have to ancestors…)
      Under the SJW system it’s considered immoral for men to be masculine and degrading for women to be feminine. It’s considered immoral for White people to have pride in their ethnic identity and traditions. And so on. Even civic nationalism is incompatible with SJW, as it requires shared values among citizens, hence people with other values aren’t welcome. However it is true that SJW distracts from class issues. For sure. But then, how do you refocus on those issues when your population is a de-cultured incoherent blob?

      1. Answer: You don’t.
        Not only does it distract from class it is inherently anti-class values as it obviously divides the working class into all sorts of antagonistic groups who hate each other and don’t want to get together to fight for their class. Hence divide and conquer and the ruling class wins. Ever wonder why all these corporations have gleefully jumped on the SJW bandwagon? Hint: it divides the workers so they won’t get together and ask for raises and whatnot.

        1. I agree that’s why the corporations like it.
          But suppose we are thinking strategically. It’s not natural or sustainable to have a purely ‘class’ based community fighting for rights and economic fairness, etc. People just don’t seem to work that way. In addition, in the US there are racial divisions that predate SJW and will not go away. For cultural and biological reasons, we are not going to see whites and blacks (in particular) coming together on the basis of class alone, then working in solidarity against corporations or banks or whatnot.
          And then, on top of all that, there’s the fact that non-whites and women benefit from the current system and the SJW ideology even if they suffer as a result of their class. Take two otherwise identical poor Americans, one white and one black, and the black guy is going to get AA and other benefits; it’s not in his interest to reject all of that and say that all poor people are in the same boat.
          Finally, while it’s true that SJW type stuff “divides the working class” it does not divide them in the same ways. White men are at the very bottom in the SJW system. They have been cast as the oppressor (regardless of class), and so (because they’re oppressed) they lack the power to assert the reality of their situation.
          So for all those reasons I don’t think a purely class-based approach is viable. I mean, I would be happy with that, but I don’t think it can happen.
          Strategically, the best option is probably for white men to form an id-pol grouping of their own that is threatening enough to make the establishment and the other id-pol factions back off. Then there’d be some chance of many groups defined partly on race and ethnicity and regional identity to work somewhat independently in defense of their class interests, without attacking each other. It’d be best if they could co-ordinate and have solidarity, but that might not be realistic either.
          I’m not proposing that these groups would have to be explicitly racialist; but they’d all be largely made up of people from a single community and wouldn’t sabotage themselves by trying to ‘include’ everyone. In a way, the wish for an ‘inclusive’ labor movement based only on class internalizes the ‘divide and conquer’ strategy of the elites — just puts the divisions right into the unions and communities so that they get paralyzed and end up arguing all the time about transgenderism or Islam…

          1. You don’t think there were ethnic or racial divisions in Cuba, China, Vietnam, Russia, the USSR, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, or Nicaragua?
            All of those places produced coherent class based movements that more or less quit fighting each other. It can be done.
            Problem is as soon as you form any White Id Pol movement, it automatically goes rightwing and votes Republican. I joke about Brandon Adamson that he’s going to be voting Republican for the rest of his life. When a White man goes into the voting booth and pulls the lever on White race, he automatically votes Republican every single time. If you want to form some White Id Pol in the Democratic Party, I would be ok with that, but I do not imagine it would go over.
            I have the experience of starting a political movement. Once you start suggesting that some groups might not want to join on account of their incompatibility, you run into problems. In fact the movement I founded is already splintering into Gay and Trans factions, and we had to open up to Black people big time. We also had to open up to gays, and I was not happy about that. I hate our Trans faction but they are part of us. As soon as you set up any movement, all of these different groups move and develop all their own little identity splits and tendencies. You can’t do anything about it, and I figure a big tent is better than an invite only party.
            I would love to see Black, Women’s, etc. wings of my movement. Women of the Alternative Left, the Black Alt Left, etc. Would be so cool.

      2. “But SJW is definitely not a form of “bourgeois nationalism” ”
        The extent to which mainstream Democrats (usually SJW-lite or SJWs) are now praising neocons and buying into neocon sentiments with Russia-gate is astonishing. They love McCain and GWB because they occasionally criticize Trump.
        The DCCC type SJWs are also McCarthyists with Russia-gate.
        They are ardent “American Exceptionalism” Neocons. They believe in eliminating the non-Bourgeois (populist or fake-populist), “misogynist”, “racist” Russians and Syrians. They want to round up evil Russian-American subversive agents.
        There is an emerging SJW-neocon coalition. Now of course if the dems continue with this Trump, as terrible as he is, will win with 90% of the vote.

        1. The extent to which mainstream Democrats (usually SJW-lite or SJWs) are now praising neocons and buying into neocon sentiments with Russia-gate is astonishing.
          Yep that’s the (((Daily Kos))) right there, which just gave me a lifetime ban for criticizing one of their (((sacred cows.))) And the (((Daily Kos))) is really the left wing base of the Democratic Party. That site is completely split between DNC types and Sanders types. They absolutely hate each other and seem like they are about ready to kill each other.
          I am so sick and tired of this McCarthyist insanity in the Democratic Party. Why are we on the Left engaging in McCarthyist attacks on Russia, code name for the USSR?
          All mainstream Democrats have to be SJW-lights. It’s simply mandatory. If you are not, you get a lifetime ban like I did.
          “They are ardent “American Exceptionalism” Neocons.”
          This is a FACT. Even on (((Daily Kos))).
          “They believe in eliminating the non-Bourgeois (populist or fake-populist), “misogynist”, “racist” Russians and Syrians.”
          I don’t think they have a problem with populism per se. You are talking more about the DNC wing. Of course they hate populists like Orban, the Polish and Italian governments, Putin, Assad, Ortega, Maduro. Those are corporate elitist ruling class Democrats with lots of money. They see populism as villagers with torches coming to raid their stock portfolios. And a lot of Jewish Democrats see populism as a pogrom popping open its shell.
          A lot of the (((Daily Kos))) hate for Russia is because Putin is mean to trannies, gays and other perverts. Also Putin is some evil reactionary who is like some foreign member of the Republican Party, which isn’t even true. Putin’s project is far more leftwing than the Democratic Party.
          They hate Assad because they bought the (((propaganda))) that is a murderous dictator who killed 500 gorillion people.
          There is an emerging SJW-neocon coalition.
          Of course. Look at all these Democratic Party SJW’s screaming about Nicaragua and Venezuela or calling for war on Syria. None of them will say one word about the US genocide in Yemen either. And quite of a few of these idiots (the Hilary wing) really hate Iran too.
          Right now the Democratic Party is attacking Trump from the right on North Korea. I guess they want nuclear war. Idiots. I have had liberal democrats tell me straight up that we need to invade North Korea because they have nukes. We simply cannot let them have those weapons. These same people support our war on Syria, bombing them, etc. They support the Syrian rebels and say we need to regime change Assad.
          These are LIBERALS. WTH man. What’s so “liberal” about any of that?

      3. “But SJW is definitely not a form of “bourgeois nationalism” ”
        The extent to which mainstream Democrats (usually SJW-lite or SJWs) are now praising neocons and buying into neocon sentiments with Russia-gate is astonishing. They love McCain and GWB because they occasionally criticize Trump.
        The DCCC type SJWs are also McCarthyists with Russia-gate.
        They are ardent “American Exceptionalism” Neocons. They believe in eliminating the non-Bourgeois (populist or fake-populist), “misogynist”, “racist” Russians and Syrians. They want to round up evil Russian-American subversive agents.
        There is an emerging SJW-neocon coalition. Now of course if the dems continue with this Trump, as terrible as he is, will win with 90% of the vote.

        1. The definition of bourgeois nationalism -“is the practice by the ruling classes of deliberately dividing people by nationality, race, ethnicity, or religion, so as to distract them from initiating class warfare.”
          In my opinion that perfectly sums up the state of the US lunatic left / SJW’s and by using a term coined by Marxists should hopefully make some of them realise that engaging in ID politics / bourgeois nationalism is not leftist in the slightest.
          It is also the reason I will not engage in any White Identity movement as i believe this is also bourgeois nationalism and another way to divide and conquer.

        2. Why don’t you join the Alternative Left? We are right up your alley.
          I have nothing against nationalism though, especially leftwing nationalism. A number of the guerrilla groups in Latin America were nationalists. Chavez was a nationalist. Ortega’s a nationalist. So we Fidel, and of course Ho. Mao was a Chinese nationalist. North Korea is clearly nationalist.
          I believe the Lao Communists are nationalists too. Ghaddafi was a nationalist. So was Connolly. The IRA, the ETA, the Eritreans, the Tamil Tigers, the PKK, a lot of the Indian separatists, the Polisario Front, Samora Machel, Nelson Mandela, they are all nationalists. There are nationalist movements in Brittany, Galicia and Catalonia, and Corsica.
          The PFLP in Palestine and Arab nationalists. In fact, most of the Arab Left was Arab nationalist.
          Leftwing nationalism is great. I don’t agree with Commies that all nationalism is bad. Most Commies are leftwing nationalists anyway when it comes down to it.

  6. I’m not suggesting a white identity movement that officially excludes people. I’m saying it’s bad to have a movement that is officially only about class and officially seeks to ‘include’ everyone. Once you do that you invariably end up with a movement that’s all about whatever current id-pol fixation the establishment and media want to promote. I’ve had this experience in unions. Once the media and education system start pushing tranny bathrooms or the wonderfulness of Islam, or whatever, the union is obsessed with it. And we never ever get back to the reason the union existed in the first place. Same thing with the Democratic Party, I’d say. If you’re a white working class man you have no place in that party anymore; it’s all about transgenders and Trayvon Martin, 24/7. And you are the oppressor. That might be a contingent feature of society now. I don’t know. But I don’t see it going away any time soon.
    “You don’t think there were ethnic or racial divisions in Cuba, China, Vietnam, Russia, the USSR, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, or Nicaragua?”
    Not sure about all of these examples. But, on the one hand, there’s no way the racial divisions in China or Vietnam or USSR were as huge as the differences between blacks and whites in the US. On the other hand, most of these regimes seem to have suppressed racial-ethnic feeling very brutally. The USSR was brutal for nationalists and ethnic minorities. If that’s the cost of a multi-culti class movement I don’t know I’d want that. Why not just let people organize by race, culture (etc) and then support each other when we have shared class interests? Actually I’d be happy if the women and non-whites just stopped demonizing us white men. But since that also doesn’t seem likely, I’ll support some kind of id-pol for white men as a counter-balance.

    1. Well in the Alt Left one of the requirements at least in my wing is at the very least you have to be pro-White. If you are not White, you have to like White people. We don’t want any White haters in our group. We are sort of the anti-Anti-White Left if that makes sense.
      USSR? They had huge populations who were a completely different race – complete Asiatics that look just like NE Asians. Also they had a huge Muslim population. Yes they repressed them at first, smashed them, and then the problems just went away.
      The cultural differences in China are huge. There are something like 90 different ethnic groups with completely different languages and cultures who speak something other than “Chinese.” And “Chinese” itself may be up to 1,000 different languages and a lot of “Chinese” speakers hate each other. I should call Chinese Sinitic actually. Stalin was brutal to them for a while in the 1930’s but they were mostly left alone or even pandered to most of the time. A number of groups were brutally repressed in WW2 on the basis of being traitors for supporting the German invaders.
      Why not just let people organize by race, culture (etc) and then support each other when we have shared class interests?
      I have nothing against this in theory, but look at SJWism to see where this leads. They all end up hating each other. Straights, Whites and men are left out, so they are resentful and vote for Reaction or fascism nowadays. And a lot of those included groups are frankly at each other’s throats a lot because a lot of the SJW project is inherently self-contradictory.
      Love of Islam plus love of feminism, I am sure you can think of others. White and Black feminists are already fighting. White and Black gays are fighting. All of these groups are turning against the Whites in their groups. There’s a war between male and female feminists. And another between radical feminists and transsexuals.
      Also it ends up being open borders internationalist and screwing over all workers in this way on the basis that these identity groups are what matters foremost and if that drives wages to the bottom of the sea, so be it.
      “Actually I’d be happy if the women and non-whites just stopped demonizing us white men.”
      That is the Alt Left project in a nutshell really. An American Renaissance article called us the “Anti-Anti-White Left.” A Left wing that is against the anti-White Left. There are women and non-Whites in the Alt Left, and they don’t demonize men at all.
      “If you’re a white working class man you have no place in that party anymore; it’s all about transgenders and Trayvon Martin, 24/7. And you are the oppressor.”
      This may be the case but I will kill myself before I vote Republican. And if you hang around the Left enough, you will notice that a lot of White male liberals don’t really care about all of this obsession with feminism, non-Whites, gays and trannies.
      There are a lot of IdPol diaries on Daily Kos and most White male liberals on that site don’t go to those diaries. Those IdPol people are just preaching to their choir. And straight White male liberals are not as pro-gay as you think.
      They have about the same opinion about faggots as any other straight man. The liberals I know shake their heads at trannies and act like they are incomprehensible freaks. And put a few drinks in a White liberal and put him in a closed room and start talking about non-Whites, especially Blacks or Hispanics, and listen to the real talk. Most White male liberals are not stereotypical idiot anti-racists. They aren’t stupid.

      1. Robert,
        A few quick thoughts in reply…
        “Yes they repressed them at first, smashed them, and then the problems just went away.”
        Sure, you can “solve” the problems by brutal repression and mass killings! But that is itself a big problem for me. I don’t want to terrorize people into some kind of new artificial solidarity and community that will serve a leftist regime.
        That’s wrong and just as bad as what the SJW people or the establishment are trying to do now. In a way you seem to be agreeing with me: the only way to make sure that different racial and cultural groups in the same class work together is by repression and terror. Well, yeah! That’s because a purely class-based movement never happens organically. Of course, this isn’t to say that class interests aren’t very important…
        “I have nothing against this in theory, but look at SJWism to see where this leads. They all end up hating each other. Straights, Whites, and men are left out, so they are resentful and vote for Reaction or fascism nowadays. And a lot of those included groups are frankly at each other’s throats a lot because a lot of the SJW project is inherently self-contradictory.”
        You seem to be assuming that SJW-ism is based on the same idea that I’m proposing. Is that right? Because I strongly disagree with that.
        Just the opposite, I’d say: the real essence and motivation of SJW-ism is nothing more than hate of the normal White man. That’s really all it’s about. It’s nothing constructive or positive. It has nothing to do with any of the real interests or identities of the other groups. Its purpose is simply to organize every other faction in society around a shared hatred of White guys.
        That’s why (as you’re saying) they all end up in conflict with any straight white men remaining in the Cultmarx Left. True, they fight with each other sometimes; but notice that victory is always determined by status wrt straight White men. For example, the black feminists are always right because their enemies, the White feminists, are White–hence a bit more like the shared nemesis, the White man.
        I guess the one case where this breaks down is the dispute between trannies and (real) women. It looks like the trannies are supposed to be always right. But in a way that fits with my theory too: SJW supports the White man precisely to the extent that he’s degrading and destroying himself; so it supports MtF trannies because these are White men who are destroying themselves, taking themselves out of the gene pool, renouncing male authority, etc.
        I’m surprised you have a strong preference for Democrats over Republicans. To me it seems like a hopeless choice. If you vote Republican you’re voting for one set of evil elite interests, but not explicitly against your biology and cultural heritage; if you vote Republican you’re voting for another set of evil elite interests, and explicitly against your biology and cultural heritage. Hard to pick between those two!
        What is the real advantage in voting Democrat in your opinion? (I guess I’d vote for Bernie, but then again I’d vote for Trump for similar reasons… Not that I expect either one would ever do much on anything I care about.)

        1. Yes your thing is similar to SJWism because the muh White race thing is just another form of IdPol. It’s an interesting form of IdPol because it is outside of the rest of the SJW IdPol alliance, but it’s IdPol nonetheless. The muh White race IdPol types are as bad as BLM and probably a lot more dangerous and nasty.
          Men’s rights types, MRA’s – that’s IdPol too. They are as bad as the feminists.
          IdPol is IdPol. You can have an IdPol about anything at all. It’s not limited to the SJW IdPol clown car.

        2. “Men’s rights types, MRA’s – that’s IdPol too. They are as bad as the feminists.”
          Difference is- MRAs narrative of Male oppression is more plausible than the reverse.
          Women were always idolized from the beginning of the human experience- and they didn’t have to be brave leaders like men did in order to be idolized.
          Men were always treated as disposable, due to female value over the length of Gestation.
          There was a Soviet article lamenting that 20% of the military age men died in WWII, leaving many single women, who were the true victims. Never mind the men that DIED.

          1. Yadda yadda.
            Everyone thinks their IdPol and their allies’ IdPol’s are valid and the IdPol’s of their enemies are not.
            I support equal rights for women in all ways. If we are short on any short of equal rights for women, I want to remedy that.
            Not really, women have been treated like crap by men since time immemorial. Most religions in the world are anti-woman. Most human groups are pretty misogynistic in one way or another, some more, some less. It was even like this 12,000 YBP. Check the Lucia find from Mexico for that. Men have always ruled over women. We are bigger, we are stronger, so we just rule over women. I think having women rule is a bad idea though. It doesn’t seem to work. Women are free to help us good men run society though.
            Want to hear something even worse? 95% of Soviet men aged 18-24 were who were alive at the beginning of the war were dead at the end of the war. An entire generation exterminated.

        3. I’m not sure where this narrative of ‘if you oppose SJWs you’re just as bad as SJWs’ comes from………
          I understand you personally yhtink they’re reactionary and many are but it plays right into the Orwellian SJW game.

          1. I’m not sure where this narrative of ‘if you oppose SJWs you’re just as bad as SJWs’ comes from………
            That would be dumb of me to say that. I probably hate SJW’s more than anyone in the country. I literally want to kill most of them, mostly for how they have treated me. I don’t even hate Republicans, capitalists, reactionaries or Nazis that much.
            I am saying that you guys are opposing SJW’s which is really just IdPol by…drum roll…creating your own IdPol! The problem is with IdPol itself not the specific freako types that are in the SJW brand.
            You oppose SJW’s by opposing all IdPol to the greatest extent possible. Or if you want to be a masculinist, you say you are also an equity feminist. If you are both, then you’re not IdPol anymore. It’s like saying you love all races. That’s not an IdPol. IdPol is about taking sides and fragmenting society along antagonistic identity based groups. MRA’s (of which I am one) and pro-Whites are taking sides and dividing the workers. Screw that.
            You don’t solve the IdPol problem by creating a new IdPol, for Chirissake. And yes the White nationalists and pro-Whites are already an IdPol. Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer are hardline IdPol types. Their IdPol is muh white race. Sort of like the Blacks who have the IdPol called muh Black race, which is almost as stupid.

          2. At this point, most people opposing SJW’s are reactionaries. If anyone’s principle issue is anti-SJW, they will march off and pull the lever for Reaction and Republicans until they die. So anti-SJW is not something we should focus on because by doing that, all we are doing is creating more Republicans and reactionary pond scum.
            Almost ALL anti-SJW types are reactionaries.
            The Alt Left was an attempt away from that, but it’s largely failed so far and it may die of the weight of its own contradictions. Alt Left groups fill up very quickly with all sorts of conservatives, reactionaries and especially Libertarians.
            A lot of the Alt Left are supporting Trump. I am renouncing all of them, but I don’t control this movement. It’s going to go in whatever direction it goes in. The Alt Left attracts rightwingers because if you oppose SJW’s, most people automatically go rightwing.
            People have this idea that to oppose SJW’s means you are on the Right, so most people who get involved in opposing them are already on the Right or quickly drift over because they think to be anti-SJW means you are rightwing, so they just adopt that identity.

        4. Women have not been “treated like shit”. Sparing them from the worst hardships is not “treating like shit”. If being spared from the worst hardships means they can’t rule, so be it.
          Women are a protected class and arguably have always had privileges against men. Just look at the statistics sometime:
          http://i.imgur.com/pgIvZfy.png
          You’re almost buying into that third way ‘above the fray’ shit. Fuck that. The truth is not always in the center of a conflict. Sometimes one side is right and one side is wrong.

        5. I am honestly curious one way in which women were ever more oppressed than men in the history of the world.
          Every time there was a mass rape- the men were killed.
          Wars average 80% male casualties.
          Now of course women have not always had it great, far from it.
          But men have had it worse. Life sucks for everyone and don’t pretend it’s better for men.

        6. “95% of Soviet men aged 18-24 were who were alive at the beginning of the war were dead at the end of the war. An entire generation exterminated.”
          Contradiction? You claim women always had it worse but then give a massive counterexample of that- all the men being killed while women stayed home.

        7. everyone always says ‘women are oppressed’ but literally can not give any situation where they had it worse than men. Ever.

        8. Again, I’ve provided evidence to support my side, you have not furnished any evidence to support your (apparent) feminist narrative despite requests.
          Does any exist? If not, then you will have helped to persuade anyone reading this to the anti-Feminist side.

  7. Mike,
    I think I need to clarify the definitional point.
    You (correctly) point out that under Marxist-Leninist ideology ‘bourgeois nationalism’ is defined as “the practice by the ruling classes of deliberately dividing people by nationality, race, ethnicity, or religion, so as to distract them from initiating class warfare.”
    Sure. But I’d argue that very often what the Marxists were describing with this term–the real phenomenon to which they were applying this definition–was not any kind of oppressive “practice” on the part of the ruling classes but, instead, it was simply the natural healthy historic functioning of distinct societies and sub-cultures based on real national identities.
    Basically, the Marxists had no place for the reality and value of ethnocultural identity and solidarity in their theory. It was a source of power and legitimacy outside their system. So it had to be defined away as a symptom of oppression.
    In reality, it was very often the Marxists who were oppressing ordinary people by denying their histories and communities and perfectly healthy ties of kinship and culture. They were forcing people into a new fake identity and fake community that could be controlled by the actual “ruling classes” in a Marxist-Leninist regime. And they were pretending that by doing this they were liberating people from false consciousness.
    So just to be clear, when I referred to “bourgeois nationalism” I meant to refer to the real referent of that term (not the typically imaginary referent that the Marxists had in mind). The real referent is often something good and normal and something that can help people to resist either capitalist or communist oppression.
    And the SJW thing is definitely opposed to it. If they had their way everything that makes it possible for people to have healthy families and communities (hence nations) would be destroyed. It’d then be replaced by atomized individuals with no history or culture except what the corporations and institutions assign to them.

    1. I think the point of why it occurs, be it a practice by the ruling class or a natural occurrence or a mixture of both we cannot quantify is not so important, the point is how to combat it’s appearance.
      I would also interpret bourgeois nationalism as not being primarily based ethnic or cultural identity.
      I think aggressive nationalism can be a distraction, in the same way aggressive feminism or trans activism also obviously distract, in my opinion all can become forms of national socialism in the sense that superiority implied for a certain group who tend to want favourable conditions.
      Plenty of Left organisations are nationalist anyway and sometimes this is pure nationalism and not entirely based on ethnic or cultural lines.
      I am primarily interested in this blog because it is one of the few places that does not espouse the typical politically correct insanity that has been hijacked by SJW’s and branded as being left wing. I don’t believe it ever was and it’s the reason I like to use an Orthodox Marxist term to describe the way they reason on social politic, hopefully it makes them think.
      The sane left can get on with focusing on the economy and not being repressive to the vast majority of people, think 99%. More of a Nye Bevan / Attlee style approach would suffice.
      You do this by creating class consciousness amongst your population, whatever that be, not by becoming pray to ID Politics yourself and promoting your own groups interest, feminists and MRA’s are the same to me, one screams about war rape and the other combat death when the problem is clearly war.

      1. “I think the point of why it occurs, be it a practice by the ruling class or a natural occurrence or a mixture of both we cannot quantify is not so important”
        But that could be very important if (as I think) it often occurs as a perfectly normal healthy part of human life. In that case, it would be a mistake to try to eliminate it, or “combat its appearance” and instead we should try to work with these normal healthy attitudes of people.
        “Plenty of Left organizations are nationalist anyway and sometimes this is pure nationalism and not entirely based on ethnic or cultural lines.”
        Why would the “pure” kind of nationalism not be (entirely) based on ethnic and cultural identity? Aren’t actual historic nations based largely (if not entirely) on such things? You say the “sane left” should simply focus on the economy. But what if, as a matter of basic human reality, people are also bonded by ethnicity and culture and other non-economic factors? I think that’s pretty plausible.
        But then why not adapt your economic or class-based to that human reality instead of asking people to ignore these things that they just do care about deeply? If you’re saying we should tell black Americans to just stop caring about race, stop identifying with other blacks or having a racial identity, and just think in economic terms…
        That strikes me as an unrealistic program. I can’t imagine blacks ever deciding in large numbers to give up racial consciousness and solidarity. Do you think that could really happen? (Real question. I’m curious to hear.)
        “You do this by creating class consciousness amongst your population…”
        Okay but how does one do that? I think there are few examples of successful movements based on class apart from any kind of basis in ethnocultural identity, shared language and religion, history, etc. And many of the examples involved extreme repression and brutality in order to create a purely class-based consciousness–because huge numbers of people just did not regard that as the sole or most important kind of identity.
        Often such movements don’t explicitly state that ethnocultural basis, but that’s probably just because in the past it was taken for granted; people didn’t live in a world where there was constant mass immigration and radical diversity being shoved down their throats. They lived in relatively stable homogeneous societies–where class naturally then became salient rather than race or culture.
        I’m not against your proposal. I simply doubt that it can be made to work, so I say why not accept what seems to be human nature and try to build class consciousness in a way that fits most people’s psychology.
        This is not “falling prey to identity politics” so much as merely accepting that we do political work in a complicated imperfect world where people are not purely economic agents. Or perhaps I’m saying that some “identity politics” is necessary and useful, even if the dominant SJW kind is bad…

  8. Well, of course it’s similar in being a form of IdPol. Sure. But I’m not denying that. I’m saying it’s (also) totally different from the SJW thing. Here are some differences:
    SJW is intrinsically hostile to normal life, normal families, normal sexuality, normal communities. We’re not.
    As a result of 1, SJW is intrinsically incompatible with any kind of workable sustainable class consciousness and defense of the interests of ordinary Americans. Our thing isn’t. (At least, not so long as we’re happy to let people of other races similarly pursue class interests, and ally with them when that’s worthwhile.)
    SJW is an attack on us, and that’s really it’s sole organizing principle. We’re mainly just defensive: to the extent that they demonize us, we need to assert that we’re not demons, that we have rights and interests too. And obviously we can’t do that in a movement that doesn’t even identify itself with us specifically.
    As a result of 4, we can have fairly clear positive aims, unlike SJW. We aim to preserve an actual existing human community, whose members identify with that community for real and natural reasons–family, kin, heritage, etc. SJW has to invent an entirely new, fake community that will never hold together. (A community of transgenders, gays, straight women, Muslims, Latinos and blacks, etc.)
    I think these differences (and others) make our thing far more reasonable and moral than SJW. (Quite apart from the further fact that their IdPol is based on absurd lies and pseudo-science whereas ours is strongly supported by all known science, common sense, tradition, etc.)
    If “anything at all” that involves political representation for some group based on its “identity” counts as IdPol, a purely class based movement is IdPol too. Which it may be. (People are in the movement because of their class identity, and they pursue the interests of that class politically against the interests of people with other identities…) But who cares?
    I’d say the problem is not IdPol per se but rather the question of which identities are politically important, in what context, for what reasons, etc. In a situation where mainstream politics is largely about how evil white men are, it’s good to have some form of IdPol that restores a bit of sanity and self-respect for the demonized group. Would you disagree?

    1. You are all worked up about these shitwads who supposedly hate us, but it’s not that bad. I have been hanging around some SJW hangouts lately, mostly gender feminist morons. Most of the people posting are White men and women. After all, feminism is mostly a White people thing. No one is saying anything about White people are evil or any of that.
      There was an Alt Left split that pro-tranny and gay and was against TERFers. Almost everyone in there was a damned homosexual of some sort. After a while, I figured out that two people who I was certain were women were actually guys! Yes, both moderators were trannies. I was so freaked out that I blasted them and was banned. These were just SJW’s who were somewhat less insane than the rest of them, but they were bigtime SJW’s all right.
      All of the trannies were White. I think all of the fags were White too. There was some freak in there who was in a relationship with a tranny (like a transwoman?) and I don’t even know what you call a person like that. Someone with a freak fetish. He was extremely pro-gay and pro-tranny too.
      All of these folks were White and I never heard one bad thing about Whites in that tranny/fag group. I don’t think they are against anyone except for radfems, and they suck anyway.
      I also spent a lot of time on Quora which is SJW Center, mostly for sexual and gender weirdos of all varieties. Full of every tranny imaginable, asexuals, pansexuals, swarming with fags, a few lezzes, and lots of idiot straight people worshipping queers and trannies and saying that they wished they were bi, I guess so they could discover what a penis tastes like. Honestly if anyone was demonized on there it would be straight men of any variety.
      They were also seriously nuts about race. Almost all of the posters were White. Never heard one thing against Whites from these ultra-SJW’s. As I said, if they are against anyone, it is straight men.
      The largest Alt Left groups are swarming with homosexuals, bisexuals, gender nonbinaries and other sexual freakazoids. This is because they are mostly young and this young generation 18-30 is seriously crazy and sexuality and gender. There seems to be nothing to be done about it.
      I am saying even the Alt Left could not get rid of the sexual and gender freaks because you have to write off an entire generation. Who really cares if someone is truly gay or not? Or if some idiot wants to go psychotic and think he’s a woman when he’s really a man. Those are just crazy people. They’re not evil. They’re nuts.

  9. What is “the muh White race thing”? I believe the white race is an essential part of western civilization. It’s a part of who I am, my family and heritage. So I care about my race and don’t want us to be demonized, replaced, discriminated against unjustly. Is that kind of thing “the muh White race thing”? The “muh” indicates something stupid, right? I don’t understand what’s meant to be stupid (or crazy or dangerous) about such attitudes. I have no hostility toward other races, and I don’t want them to be demonized or replaced either. Surely you don’t think that anyone white person who cares about his race and resists our demonization is stupid or dangerous…?

    1. It’s simply not important. I don’t really give a fuck whether I live in a White town or not. I actually like living with Mexicans more than with Whites. I actually welcome White decline because this insane Republican reactionary bullshit will be gone.
      Well I am not wild about people demonizing us either. But mostly it’s just retarded dumbfucks saying stupid shit. I don’t care about it because, dirty little secret, I actually think we are better.
      Yeah, I don’t care about my race. Most White people don’t care about the White race either. Everything’s going multiracial anyway. It’s dumb because it’s not important and because every time you go into the voting booth and pull the lever on White People, you will be voting for the worst types of reactionaries for the rest of your life.
      Maybe if the muh White race people weren’t such a bunch of scumbuckets I could support them more. Like if they were more progressive people. But we don’t need to save our people. Races change all the time anyway. This will just lead to new races that will be probably better than this one. The other races such as they exist will all be replaced too or change into new races actually. This is the way of mankind. Who cares if we get replaced? Is it important.
      Yes it’s stupid. It’s ridiculous. And most of them are awful human beings, much worse than you are. You are not dangerous, but a lot of them sure are. White Priders are pretty much the worst people on Earth in my opinion.
      It’s idiocy in my opinion. Like, why would anyone care about that?

      1. Robert,
        I can explain why people might care about it, I think. Here are a few reasons.
        First, race is essentially connected with family and culture. A race is basically a very big extended family. So people tend to care because of evolution and biology, in much the same way that ee care about our immediate family. Though much less intensely, of course. They care simply because these are “their” people. Frank Salter has explained this well.
        By analogy, most people are speciesist. They care about humans (regardless of race) more than chimps or pigs. Because humans are “their” kind
        Then there is culture. If I want Irish culture to exist, I want white people to exist. Replace the population of Ireland with Cherokees or Bantus and the culture cannot be sustained. So without some significant degree of racial continuity, with mixing happening only very gradually, you lose your culture. And there are both cultural and biological reasons for this. I think it’s reasonable and morally acceptable for people to want their grandchildren to inhabit a cultural world basically similar to their own, to want their culture to continue and develop rather than ending when they die.
        Third, white people have unique gifts. I really doubt we would have the same scientific, philosophical, political, artistic (etc) achievements in a world without us. And all of humanity would lose, therefore, if we were extinct.
        There are other reasons but I think I’ve shown it’s reasonable for people to care.

        1. I don’t care about my extended family.
          I don’t care if Irish culture exists and anyway, it would just change to some new Irish culture. Or the immigrants could assimilate. This is the Third Positionist POV. There is a photo of a Black man in Brittany wearing traditional Breton garb. He is a Breton.
          We never had any kind of racial or cultural continuity on Earth in the past, why should we hav one now? Race will just turn into new races, an cultures will turn into new cultures as they always have. Or you could always require people to assimilate, which would still subtly change the culture over time.
          You are saying Whites are better than other races. This is a White Supremacist attitude which is really in back of all the other rhetoric. I don’t agree. Whites are not special. Mix Whites with other high quality persons of other races and you should get some very competent humans, maybe more competent than current Whites.
          OK, I am sitting here in my Mexican town making $22,000 in a good year. How does voting Trump or voting Republican objectively help me in my life? How to Republican pro-White policies help me? Why should I vote for them? How will they make my life better?

    1. If you think MRA is too identarian, that’s fine.
      But please do not tell me that ‘women are oppressed’ for God’s sake.
      A mere google search debunks that.

  10. To Lindsay:
    “Not really, women have been treated like crap by men since time immemorial. Most religions in the world are anti-woman. Most human groups are pretty misogynistic in one way or another, some more, some less. It was even like this 12,000 YBP. Check the Lucia find from Mexico for that. Men have always ruled over women. We are bigger, we are stronger, so we just rule over women. I think having women rule is a bad idea though. It doesn’t seem to work. Women are free to help us good men run society though.”
    Wrong, wrong, wrong.
    -In all wars comprehensively, men were 80% of the dead.
    -Men have always been disproportionate victims of violence and incarceration.
    -Men have more frequently been rejected by their own children.
    -Only 40% of all the men who ever lived reproduced, versus 80% of women.
    -Slavery of men is still legal via conscription.
    -Men are saved last from sinking ships.
    -And yet men are shamed for all the sacrifices they make.
    I can only assume that you do not wish to offend big sister by these statements, as women represent an unusually large portion of your readership and due to solipsism are hypersensitive of any criticism of women ‘at large’.
    http://i.imgur.com/pgIvZfy.png

    1. No, I actually believe that. I am an old-style feminist. I believe that for most of history, men have treated women poorly and in most of the world, we still don’t treat them right. And we don’t treat them very well even here in the US. Sometimes I wonder why women put up with us at all. I am not sure if a lot of women read this site and most who do are not hardline feminists and any of those types would get driven away by my MRA stuff long ago.
      I’m not worried about offending women. Look at how I write about them. I am rather critical of women actually.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *