It’s been a long time since I posted and even longer since I effort posted mostly because the site was overran by mouth breathing Retards during the Trump election. But I feel a need to write down my thoughts and feeling on Jordan Peterson and get into a debate with a few of the Peterson fags on this site. So here we go a short list of my thoughts on the man and a deconstruction of his ideology.
1. Advice from an ideological gatekeeper: First and foremost the man is a psychologist with a target audience primarily young and disenfranchised white males from the west that are lost in their surroundings. He has gained a cult like following amoung them by donning a jungian archetype of the father figure that many of the men he speaks to likely never had. Part or whole of his persona seems to be a fabrication to appeal to his audience it even has its own catch phrase “clean your room Bucko!”
2. Teaching Conclusions: The next phase of his psychological exploitation is having his target audience come to agree with his worldview by ultimately believe they came to these conclusions themselves. This is the most clever form of persuasion and also one of the most difficult. He achieves this by having them associate themselves with things that are “western” voluntarily and then goes on to define what the “west” is for them. It’s a very clever way to mind fuck someone.
3. Subjective interpretations: much of his philosophical work is very subjective and he very much bends the nature of the philosophers he quotes to try and make them affirm his worldview. Examples of this are when he either misused someone’s work or ignores huge swathes of their work. Like when he uses Nietzsche to affirm Christianity or completely ignores Solzhenitsyn Russian nationalism and antisemitism. Solzhenitsyn Was the darling child of the petersonian sort of western leftist up until they realized he was a conservative Russian nationalist there’s a reason intellectuals like Peterson would never do a lecture on 200 years together.
4. Old left new right: In terms of social policy he is fundamentally a leftist the only reason he is even on the right is because he vaguely opposes the most radicle elements of the left. In this way he works to shift the overtone window further left. He declares his leftist position the new right and makes anything to the right of him seems morally and socially abhorrent.
5. He’s a gate keeper: in political terms there are things called gate keepers. These are political and social pundits that set the confines on what is and is not socially and morally acceptable. Anglo societies are notorious for having a certain amount of tyranny within society that is not codified into law. Examples of this are losing your job because you are “racist” or being attacked for being “islamiphobic” these things are not written into law but they might as well be. His primary objective is to re establish the confines of what is or is not socially acceptable thoughts or ideas. “White identity is morally abhorrent”
6. Faustian Utopianism: his ideals on collectivism and individuality are in the same Faustian utopian spirit as facism and communism. It self identifies the problem with the entire world and decides that ultimately if it could eliminate this one thing then we would have heaven on earth. “The Jews” the bourgeois” “ the collectivists” this sort of Utopianism has been the ideological end phase of Germanic Christian civilization and has been its bane. People will voluntarily associate with whom every they will and if you could destroy all collectives and ethnic groups the fundemental nature of this existence would not change. Read Fyador Dostoevsky notes from underground and clean your room bucko.
He is also a gatekeeper in the sense that he prevents people from becoming far right. He's even proud of stopping people from joining are side.
Levi Murphy
Yeah I have seen them I mostly wanted to write down my thoughts on the matter and try and find a coherent why to articulate them. The thread they have up now seems a cluster fuck that wasn’t worth posting in
Oliver Thomas
Correct observations user, but we already knew all of that. You should post this thread in places where people who actually believe him are posting. He knows manipulation techniques, but he is not a character of high caliber, nor a real intellectual. Just another charlatan hastily recruited to do damage control.
Luis Reyes
1. I don't that that his persona is a fabrication to appeal to his current audience. I watched his whole lecture series before he blew up, recordings of him lecturing to classes that were majority female. He acted largely the same, and had similar ideas.
4. I don't understand how opposing radical elements of the left, and pointing them out as ridiculous and untenable pushes the Overton window to the left.
5. One of his major points is that its necessary to find the right way to restructure hierarchies so that tyrannies don't take hold.
6. I can see how the catchphrase "clean your room bucko" can be very grating. But taking a stance against the core message is counter productive. Keep your surroundings orderly, keep yourself orderly. You should be able to organize the smallest details of your life.
Julian Allen
1. Perhaps your right but I am increasingly skeptical of a psychologist telling me what to think and I am positive has has both a target audience and has gained a cult like following by acting like a father figure.
4. Pushing an overtime window is a political trick where you oppose the most radicle elements of your own base camp to establish a softer less militant version of those ideals as seeming more reasonable. I think your fundementally misunderstanding the point of this one.
5. “Fundementally restructure hierarchy so tyrannys don’t take hold” sounds like a polite way of establishing a social tyranny for certain wrong think ideas that you don’t want to take hold in society. It’s tyranny in the name of not tyranny.
Jose Smith
My understanding of an Overton window, is that it's the set of topics that are socially acceptable to have a discourse about.
Showing how something at the fringe of it is ridiculous and out of the question, at the very least shrinks that part of the window. I see what you mean about him showing the far right as abhorrent in order to settle into a nice position a bit closer to the center. But I don't think he is pushing it as a whole to the left. I think he's pushed it to the right.
Hierarchies inherently drift towards tyranny, but they are also fundamentally based on competence according to Peterson. Constant debate is required so that they don't go too far towards. They become tyrannical when they are too closed off to the other people in the society.
Caleb Murphy
The disagreement on our way to interpret what Peterson has done lies in this, I would strongly disagree with the statement Peterson is a right wing figure. At best he is a classical liberal with some elements of Christian identitarinism. In terms of social policy much of his opinions seems to be aligned with the mainstream left. I view him as a center left figure.
Hierarchy’s drifting towards tyranny is something that should indeed be resisted but his assertions on the nature of tyranny within a society go beyond that of the limitation of a hierarchy’s ability to impose tyranny’s. I feel to him it’s about the limitation of ideals he feels are inatially tyrannyical i.e white identity politics. He seems to limit and guide the nature in which I can choose to participate with my society and even the way I can define a society.
