Jordan Peterson's Prophecy: Is the Beast Waking Up?

Well Sup Forums?

Any signs this is coming true yet?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=8ymEKiY1UR8
youtube.com/watch?v=a8y9qLwTmEQ
washingtonexaminer.com/black-law-editor-acquit-anyone-charged-with-murdering-raping-whites/article/2609148
youtube.com/watch?v=O-nvNAcvUPE
youtu.be/sn4mVDtqi7g
archive.org/details/TheGulagArchipelago-Threevolumes
youtube.com/watch?v=vLqHv0xgOlc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Not yet.

soon
the pendulum is going to swing so fucking hard

I fucking hope so!

I want it to swing back so fucking hard that I end up regretting it.

Impossible.

Think of the glorious purges.

He's essentially right but in order to make this happen you have to convince people and to show them that the essence of the left's project is to eliminate them.

This happens to be doable because there's a sense in which it's true. Diversity and the destruction of genders are never presented like this but that's only because the left control the narrative on these points. But the explicit goal of diversity, when stated in its effect, is simply to reduce the proportion of white people in any given country. This is not a statement concerning some kind of conspiracy theory. It literally cannot be about anything else simply because the proportions of the different races interact in a zero sum fashion. If you increase the numbers of Indian you necessarily reduce the proportion of whites.

At this point the question arises: while we understand why an Indian might one to increase the proportion of its own demographic in the country, why would whites systematically work to decrease their? If it is incorrect to reduce or keep constant the proportion of Indian in the country because that would be considered hostile, while is the same attitude against whites not considered hostile by the system? What are the actual advantages of diversity? What is the end game of that program?

>peterson
>faggot
>cia
It's like you nigger loving, fag enablers can't learn from the past.

Serious queston anons.

Have you tried having discussions with leftists about things like white genocide?

Since I first read this quote from Peterson in Macleans, I have gone out of my way to try to have civil discussions with leftists (admittedly, only online, I mean how well could it possibly go in person). I have tried very hard to reason with them. I've provided evidence, polite refutations to obvious fallacies, tried teaching them about their own ideology sometimes.

The result has really disturbed and disheartened me. Not once was anyone really open to listening. I am repeatedly told that races do not exist, but also that somehow white people are a race that needs to just accept they will "go extinct" (yes, more than once they used the word "exinct").

Some of them have straight up said that we deserve it for x reason. Usually these ones are not white themselves, either, which makes their rhetoric even more terrifying to me.

If they are already telling us we deserve to disappear, what should we expect down the line?

I understand why Peterson says it terrifies him. It's because the only solution to something if it became that dire would involve violence probably on a scale this world has never seen before.

I suppose the alternative is even more horrifying. Total annihilation and enslavement of or people, complete marginalization.

Or I guess we could still hope for real dialogue to be opened up about race in the Western world, and hope for peaceful resolution. I just don't see anyone in the world even trying to do that.

welcome to reality where truth is stranger than fiction. this is a massive shit test for whites - will we rise to the occasion and dominate the world, again? or will we get cucked by niggers and jews

I honestly think that Peterson is correct that the ones pushing for cultural marxism don't even believe in its false promises of a utopia, but that they sincerely wish to destroy western civilization out of resentment.

When talking with leftists, I have tried many ways to show them the contradictions in their logic, but it never works.

And more than once after backed into a logical corner, they fall back to saying that we "deserve it".

Fucking think about that.

>you have to convince people and to show them that the essence of the left's project is to eliminate them.

that CBC/22 mins video about white genocide is doing a great job of that; red-pilling all the happy maritime normies.

>If they are already telling us we deserve to disappear, what should we expect down the line?

it depends if they intend on seeing that end via passive or active means. if whites increase birth rates and keep some countries lily-white, they'll do nothing.

if they want war, they'll get it; the american right and 2A movement so strongly white has already demonstrated they have the numbers and the means to wage a war that will tear the fabric of the west, not just america.

a race war would spell doom to our enlightenment values and egalitarian attitudes. that will be the TRUE loss in a race war; not infrastructure or loss of life, but the complete disillusionment with modern society's conceptual basis.

why they talk so boldly about literal extinction but expect to stop an active or even a violent reaction by calling people "racist, xenon, etc" is ludicrous and speaks volume about their stupidity.

You can't tell someone they deserve death and act shocked they're willing to fight to the death to stop that.

Ich frage euch...

WOLLT IHR DEN TOTALE KRIEG?

YEEEEEEEEAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

youtube.com/watch?v=8ymEKiY1UR8

I hope that our peoples' cucking instinct fucking ceases, and I expect it will. I think it comes out of Northern European societies based on strong group cohesion, where your name matters most and you have to have the right morality (hold the right moral opinions) in order to be part of society.
That means that the extreme cucking could flip into its opposite, the same way that 1950s society flipped into May 68.

>about things like white genocide?

I never really really talk about it this way. Rather, I ask a fundamentally sociological question and try to remain within the framing of that question:

>What are the advantages of ethno-cultural diversity?

The question as at least three advantages:

(1) I do not have to make a case for the essentially positive value of the white race. Many people who speak of white genocide then get obsessed by the task of proving that there is something inherently good and worth saving about the white race which, in our materialistic day and age, must necessarily devolve into an argument rooted in biology and the biological validity of the concept of race.

(2) I force the leftist to think about the social objectives which he is trying to achieve by promoting diversity, and about social objectives in general. Does he want harmony? Does he want safety? Does he want more or less inter-ethnic conflicts? Does he want a society where people think more in individualistic terms or in collectivist terms?

(3) The disadvantage of diversity are at this point so blatant that is is fairly easy to point to any number of example and say "this conflict would not have happened had we been in a non diverse context". I believe a strong case can be made that the management of diversity is such that it is antithetical to the maintenance of a free society, which is a fairly powerful argument against it.

Basically, the debate has to be properly framed from the start in order to make it come out that we all want certain thing in our societies and that diversity is not conductive of guaranteeing these things.

>Usually these ones are not white themselves, either, which makes their rhetoric even more terrifying to me.

It's fairly clear that non whites want to eliminate whites. Hopefully you've saved these conversations.

I had my own father tell me he wanted whites to become a minority in their countries to show the racists, then added that nothing bad would happen.
The cucking runs deep. That is now the generation gap. Needing to reach into the past as a generation of fatherless men in order to find people who could teach us.

>a race war would spell doom to our enlightenment values and egalitarian attitudes. that will be the TRUE loss in a race war; not infrastructure or loss of life, but the complete disillusionment with modern society's conceptual basis.

Thank you so much for bringing this up. This is something that I have thought about as well, but you've put it into words for me.

Along these lines, what will the world look like in general after that? Here is something that concerns me:

Our most powerful enemies are literally part of a cult that has "order out of chaos" as one of their main mantras. Consider that racial tensions are seemingly being influenced by powerful interests (e.g. Soros funding BLM).

What I'm getting at, is what if the race war is all part of the plan, because they'll use the chaos to more completely control and oppress us by instating their end-game NWO.

How could we be establish order ourselves without falling into their trap?

The fundamental leftist mindset is that suffering is something that is created, that doesn't exist as a base state and that, therefore, the only thing that stands between us and a better state is the destruction of whatever it is that is in front of us. Since all human are fundamentally the same and since all human are fundamentally good (except perhaps some class of people out of which oppression emanates because of greed) then it follow that the bringing about of positive outcome is a fundamentally destructive act. One must DESTROY the "systems of oppression" which CREATE suffering and so on.

You sometime see this logic applied in economical terms, where it is said that capitalism CREATES poverty, which is insane. There is no economic system on earth, no even communism, which creates poverty. Poverty, the absence of productive power, is the default state of man. But in the leftist narrative, goodness is always one act of destruction away. Patriarchy, bourgeoisie, hetero normativity, white people...

They are always on the path to liberation FROM something.

I learned a lot from your reply, saved, thank you.

I understand your reasoning for avoiding the white genocide question. The reason I tried going there specifically is because I honestly do not think our nations can come to a peaceful solution (no race war) without open dialogue on race that is founded in science and compassion.

Your predictions about how it always devolves are 100% correct. And it's once it gets to the level of "why does your culture or race matter" is when seriously disturbing racial hatred is unveiled.

I have had people tell me that whites targeted for rape in for example Sweden because of their race, stoop to rape victim blaming (which I know is something SJWs screech about, but there is such a thing as real rape victim blaming -- see stoning women to death in Saudi Arabia because they were raped).

>a race war would spell doom to our enlightenment values and egalitarian attitudes

These attitudes already have to die. The enlightenment project has run its course and there's no reason to defend its conception of a fundamentally fixed human nature characterized primarily by our ability to reason, which was supposed to result in the discovery of the ideal way to live and the humanely ideal society.

The fact of the matter is that there seems to be several different ways to live, between which it is impossible to rationally decide -- "all profound decisions are matter of faith" -- and that we will therefore not be able to defend our particular way of life with the help of some fundationalist project rooted in a philosophical elucidation of the human soul.

We have to recognize that we live in a particular historical situation, that our way of life is fragile and contingent, and that we can't just operate on the assumption that we have reached a a-historical state that everyone will be bound to accept sooner or later, were they to properly use their reason and finally see the light.

There's also something which I would like to call a "pure notion of diversity". There's often people who insist that the whole problem of diversity is a problem of value, that if you take someone from sub-Sahara Africa who happen to subscribe to enlightenment values, that that somehow solves all problem. But I'm now convinced that, even if you have identity of values, there's always a kind of residue. There's an awareness of the fact that we're different at some level, that this difference is objective (not a social construct) and that this awareness is enough to cause problem not between individuals but between communities of individuals.

But taking account of community of individuals in our political discourse would already be a radical, anti-enlightenment step. It's a step we need to take.

I forgot to mention, one tactic I have tried, is when there happens to be both a non-white and a white leftist in the same conversation, is try to steer the conversation to that place where sometimes racial hatred is revealed. Once, the non-white leftist said something pretty messed up, and the white leftist sort of said so too then left the conversation.

Really makes them think.

>two leafs having the most intelligent discussion i've seen on pol for months
what's going on here

Can't wait desu

>And it's once it gets to the level of "why does your culture or race matter" is when seriously disturbing racial hatred is unveiled.

Well, the fundamental facts of demographics in a democracy are this:

(1) Demography is a zero sum game. Whatever help a certain demography grow also help every other demography lose ground.

(2) In a democracy, but actually in all systems, demographic mass is equal to political power. Who has more mass has more votes and therefore more power. Therefore, demography is about power.

So we now find ourselves in a situation where it is implied but not said explicitly, that white people have to actively work in such a way that they systematically lose their political (and social and cultural) relevance over time, presumably because justice requires it, that is to say because retribution against whites in general is good. At this point it is usually wise to remark that minorities -- and indeed people in general -- do not work for justice but merely for their own interests. They speak of justice because this concept has an objective value. If someone can convince me that killing myself is something I should do for justice, then it has a little bit more weight that if he were to tell me that I needed to kill myself merely because he wanted me to. The situation is the same for "racial justice". Non whites gain by convincing whites that they have to pay, and therefore they tell whites that they have to pay. This has nothing to do with justice but rather with legitimizing their own presence in Canada (and the west) because it just so happen that these countries have a lot of physical and social capital from which they want to profit, on top of personal freedoms.

The point is that you should not really believe them and you should systematically escape from the cognitive trap of retributive justice by noting that they are merely operating in their own interests.

>But taking account of community of individuals in our political discourse would already be a radical, anti-enlightenment step. It's a step we need to take.

I think that is happening right now, and Trump's election was part of it. I read this interesting article after the election (can't remember the title) that shone a light on how an invisible social contract had just been erased.

Essentially, the contract was that whites did not organize as a collective group (it even being considered taboo), and the non-whites were allowed to occasionally raise the alarm about "racism".

Well, what's happened is, exactly like in Peteron's prophecy, the radical left has become obsessed with identity politics, and not only that but they've been using the "invisible contract" to nip at the heels of whites (especially heterosexual white men). Basically slapping us and saying "what are you gonna do about it white boy?".

Obviously this has woken up a significant number of whites already, hence Trump, though perhaps not to the level of full 1488.

Yes. Revealing racial hatred against white is rather important. This is why it should be elicited whenever possible, with as little prompting as possible.

Whenever one hears of "racial justice", one is always rather close to "racial retribution", because from a psychological standpoint "justice" and "pay back" are extremely close concepts. This, incidentally, makes a mockery of the idea that diversity is this wishy washy things where everyone comes together and celebrates the strength that it's supposed to bring about.

When you hear of racial justice, diversity is actually revenge, not strength, and this need to be made explicit.

The horseshoe theory is real.

I believe that we will begin to see it soon.
Leftists have not abandoned their rancor just yet, and the MSM continues to stoke that fire. The tension is only going to ratchet higher the closer we get to inauguration day.
youtube.com/watch?v=a8y9qLwTmEQ

If leftists are the real racists, does this mean that there is a part of Sup Forums roleplaying as leftists just to see the world burn?

I mean I just watched a TYT segment about some black lawyer who was asking black jurors to acquit every white person that they think is guilty as a form of protest. Now, I'm thinking this is completely insane but I also got thinking if you really want race war you should be supporting these sort of leftists. Like saying "Yea let's burn our city down, fuck the whitey" kind of mentality.

Does anyone here roleplay as leftist and tries to fan their flames like that? I'm sure there must be people who do.

I use this argument with normies about the dangers of PC culture and identity politics. They lap it up. Freedom of speech quashes ugly ideas.

>This is why it should be elicited whenever possible, with as little prompting as possible.

It is an art form. I will endeavor to pump skill points into triggering.

As Sun Tzu said:

>When your enemy is executing a false movement, never interrupt him.

>an invisible social contract had just been erased.

The invisible contract is that of enlightenment individualism, the kind of attitude that was encapsulated in Martin Luther King statement as to his hope that one day we would not judge people by the color of their skin but the content of their character.

It's interesting to note in this respect that King was a Christian, and that the enlightenment is in many way a secularized version of Christianity, which contains strong individualistic elements on top of a reverence for the human soul (human nature) and therefore of a specific type of society which could, in principle, best correspond to the shape of this soul.

But in the enlightenment, the individual was to, through the help of his reason, make justified decision on the basis of his "personal light" instead of relying on higher authority in order to gain guidance. This is still the underlying idea which animates the west and was even at the bottom of marxism. When leftists talk about racial justice and the elimination of whites, they're still operating within that framework even though it doesn't look like it.

By declaring all human being to be fundamentally reasonable (the same) except in cases of specific distortion (white privilege, the empire, being rich) which caused injustices, they also affirm the fundamental unity of humanity, at which point stuff like border and cultural communities are just unhappy accident artificially dividing the human race. The leftist's job is allegedly to eliminate these artificial divisions (between races, between classes, between sexes).

Brilliant and underrated.

Wait, did you mean this one?

washingtonexaminer.com/black-law-editor-acquit-anyone-charged-with-murdering-raping-whites/article/2609148

Black lawyer demanding that all blacks who have been imprisoned for murdering whites be pardoned?

That alone should have opened your eyes to what's at stake here. By all accounts, when speaking to those who are supposed to benefit the most from this multiculturalism, the guests the host (White) nations invite in, the response in to how said beneficiaries feel about their hosts are often enough negative to cause concern. It has quickly taken the most interesting of turns over the last five decades.

Once, we used to hold that the majority of Whites were "ok" with the subjugation and oppression of citizen minorities, however, we well know now that the extreme elements of the "racist" right have faded into the background in favor of the current state of affairs. What's distressing is that one would presume, as social equity arose, tensions would disperse, or if not that, the racist Whites would openly lash out, but never truly have. Europeans the world over have embraced and overseen the creation of multiple multicultural societies, arguably all of them success in initial exercise, except for the one result that turns the system on its head. The minorities, despite ever increasing rights and a place in Western society have only grown in their hatred. Higher education, welfare, mass immigration, generalized broad-brush non-discriminatory laws have accomplished what? An entire block of assorted racial groups consistently align in direct opposition to White interests, fueled by an unquestioned or critiqued near lockstep uniformity in their political expression: "The White man has done evil and must pay for that evil." That has encompassed the entirety of minority political expression since the introduction of Civil Rights. We, out of some bizarre twist of events, have only made the people we once had under an iron fist, now hate us even more. That is where the truth arrives, there is no peace to be had among the many people of the Earth. Everyone fights over everything, from belief to the way someone looks, there's no escaping. Whites are ignoring reality.

Yea that's the one. He's not asking for a pardon but for the black juries to acquit any criminal that is being put on trial against a white victim.

The number of people I speak to, even in person, who actually think borders should be eliminated, frankly astonishes me.

This is a way of thinking that I had honestly not been exposed to until about 6 months ago. A couple of times I've been able to convince them that it's an absurd idea simply by describing the mass migrations that would happen virtually overnight, and the chaos that would ensue.

Of course they don't realize that the migrant crisis in Europe is almost exactly that.

Actually I have a question from this. If a race war started in the US right now, who would benefit from that? Assuming it was started by let's say BLM chimping out and burning down Trump tower or something. Does this benefit the left or the right?

The right, because the have an excuse, and the support from the general public, to crack down on the inner cities and purge out the undesirables
Plus, any leftie that came out in support for BLM (in the case you proposed) would be committing political suicide in the eyes of anyone but the already radicalised left

They don't understand the role of borders since they don't make the connection between borders and way of life.

There's group of people and there's the shared cultural background that these people have, which is reflected in their language, mental categories, social roles, habit, behaviors, etc. Maybe you have group of people A who likes to drink from time to time and then you have group of people B who doesn't like to drink at all. These people then naturally separates from one another because their way of life differs and now, at this point, whether there are borders or not, there is in point of fact an implicit border that exists.

Borders are there because on any given territory there can only be one set of law, which is to say one way of life embodied by a group of people, and the idea that there should be no border at all is actually predicated on the idea that everyone everywhere somehow can have the same way of life, or that it's not possible for way of life to conflict, which is fucking stupid. But at the same time, why should there be conflicts in ways of life if (1) cultural differences are strictly a private matter (this is cultural presupposition which they thing is universal) and if (2) there is a single human nature toward which everyone will converge?

Borders aren't necessary in a universe where all people are the same. But, of course, liberal individualism, where cultural and religious differences are relegated to the private sphere, is already a historically contingent phenomena. The rest of the world is much more collectivist and perceived culture as being this shared thing that has a place in the public sphere.

(Not that the Muslims have the same thing sort of. They believe that everyone is fundamentally an Muslims and that one day there will be a single borderless country of Muslims, instead of a single global order of reason and rationalisty.)

END THE ENLIGHTENMENT

This whole process of white people "waking up" is actually sort of fascinating.

I think part of what Peterson is referring to with regards to a beast awakening, is the actual collective biological survival instinct of our race.

It seems to me like there's a real spectrum of awakening. From just feeling like something is "off" about the world, to your survival instinct actually physically activating.

Cornered animals are capable of almost supernatural feats of violence in self-defense.

Honestly, I shudder to think of the fate that awaits the ones who are nipping at our heels so arrogantly. What is going to happen? I'm hoping that most of them will be expelled peacefully, I'm not someone who relishes the idea of genocidal violence.

IS THAT A THREAT?!

>Essentially, the contract was that whites did not organize as a collective group (it even being considered taboo), and the non-whites were allowed to occasionally raise the alarm about "racism".

>Well, what's happened is, exactly like in Peteron's prophecy, the radical left has become obsessed with identity politics, and not only that but they've been using the "invisible contract" to nip at the heels of whites (especially heterosexual white men). Basically slapping us and saying "what are you gonna do about it white boy?".

Great point, and one I've made made to people I work with (who are more conservative). There's been a strong taboo since the 1960s, a consensus that arose out of the civil rights movement (and '68 stuff elsewhere), that white people do NOT organize as a group. This made sense at the time, as America was about 85% white. Colorblindness was a virtue in the 70s and 80s, touted by ACLU members. Blacks could organize as a race, arguably, because they needed it.

Like you said, the left pushed the idpol and multiculturalism thing, especially in academia and other corners, and mass immigration took what had previously been a mostly white nation, the factual basis of the theoretical justification for this social contract, and transformed it into a "diverse" nation. How many times have we heard, "These demographics are going to FUCK you white people" over the past 5 years or so? Combine that with the expansion of racial or ethnic identity categories, many of which are given a "protected status" that would have made some sense in 1965, and you end up with large portions of the population who are not white but feel that, by virtue of being non-white, they have a special moral status and believe they need to act collectively against white people. So there's no pressure to assimilate, because that would mean giving up that status. However, white people are still not permitted to act in a communal fashion.

Now, that consensus is breaking down.

Isn't Sup Forums an example of a multicultural utopia that transcends borders?

Wtf Im a leftist now

I need to racemix.

...

dude people from Sup Forums and other boards troll here for free larping as ctr and commies

Whites have always had a capacity for violence, but after decades of being told "war is bad" and encouraging peaceful resolution, etc., we have lost that instinct to resort to it. It does however, lie just beneath the surface. I think most whites are coming to terms with the fact that this is no longer a matter of "talking things out" no matter who on either side of the fence says this is a good idea. That idea has come and gone.
I think this comes largely from the perception of lack of resources, and an ever growing population. Instinctively people fought for their space or their means to live in the past, but now that is glossed over in the idealism of "civilization" . As much as we hear someone say "peace" we hear fifty other voices saying "take what is yours,or they will".
We are seeing groups organize online, sharing idealistic viewpoints and generally antagonizing the "other", while small skirmishes break out in the real world. I suspect it won't be long before groups begin to form in defense of the ideals they share. (they may have already)

>I'm not someone who relishes the idea of genocidal violence.

That was the point being made though, the enemies already entertain the idea. When that is what you are facing, there is no hope of peace to come, things will only get worse and keep on getting worse. It's now nothing more than waiting for that tipping point, this is a foregone conclusion, you should know this, they scream their plans out in the open:

"Open borders for the West, minorities in their countries by 2050 and a nullification of the many hateful European cultures, in favor of a multicultural (i.e., non-European) society."

There is nothing left to wonder.

Yea that's obvious, I realized someone might say that but what I meant was in leftist websites like going on TYT saying shit like "yea fuck the whitey" and trying to start a race war that way. Or roleplaying as a leftist lawyer and ask black people to acquit everyone who is charged agaisnt a white victim. Being a leftist in here is irrelevant.

this is already happening....
when's this quote from?
if recent then he's literally just describing what's happening and calling it a "prophecy"
you guys are prophetic

That image is misleading because it implies that other races did not do the same, which they most certainly did. Europeans however managed to make something of it where others failed.

I think he said that during the first confrontations over that UoT bill where the SJWs where shutting him down and threatening to fire him, and that's what he said to them as they screamed "WHITE MALE" at him.

>radical left wingers
God, this guy is a moron. They are not radical anything. They are useful retards who have no idea what they are doing. They have mush for brains that have been molded by the Jewish ideas which have poisoned academia. Even the majority of professors who push this shit aren't radicals but literal retards. Read some of the papers these people put out. They are utter nonsense. If you locked up the majority of these "radicals" and then killed all the jews and rebuilt a fascist white society, when they were released from prison, they would get right in line. Prof Peterson is a brave man, but he does not understand his enemy and he and he is going to lose.

This thread is a proper fucking diamond.

Thank you all for these posts. I am copypasting almost everything to reread again later, then reread some more.

>What is going to happen?

Impossible to say. I would venture that mass violence is a distinct possibility, maybe even a likely possibility. Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech comes to mind. Virtially all Western people have a worldview which lends itself to biological reductionism nowadays, much more so than in the 30s and 40s, for example, when Christianity still had a great influence on the average person's Weltanschauung. I don't really think this last statement is a matter for debate. The operative forces are deeply elemental now, titanic you might even say. Nihilism, Darwinism, and the consumer culture have removed any limitations on conscience for a huge number of people. This doesn't bode well. If and when white people develop a consciousness of themselves, and if a necessary catalyst is supplied to further strengthen the bonds between them (a prolonged period of economic hardship, say), they're going to act exactly as you described - like a cornered animal.

>The point is that you should not really believe them and you should systematically escape from the cognitive trap of retributive justice by noting that they are merely operating in their own interests.

How can you prove this to someone that claims they are ascribing to a noble ideal of justice, rather than only acting in their own interests? How can the two motives be differentiated from an external point of view?

around 1:00 he speaks to that:
youtube.com/watch?v=O-nvNAcvUPE

true, other races have had their share.

Peterson, in his interview with Joe Rogan, explores the idea of hell being a human state in which you are possessed by genocidal hatred.

It has occurred to me that hatred is in fact a survival mechanism. It gives a human being, that otherwise acts quite benevolently towards other human beings for the sake of mutual survival, to sort of turn off their compassion so they can kill.

Brings new meaning to the phrase "war is hell".

The church shooting on SC was a definite sign this is on its way.

When the beast called the "right wing" will finally awaken, by leftist poking and prodding, the revenge will be so harsh, leftism as an ideology will cease to exist.
The SJW "hunters" shall become the hunted.
And not an ounce of mercy will be shown. They have shown their goal was to exterminate the very people who created their entire way of life. And those people will exterminate the cancer that is leftism.

Screencap away, the beauty of the Truth is that it never needs to change.

I don't discuss anything with them. It is total war and that is the bottom line. They want us dead and gone for there hodge podge society. They spit on our ancestors and demonize our pride.

...

Ah yea I forgot I got this from a leftist the other day when I said blacks do the majority of the murders in the US.

...

both bro.. you're zoomed in too far. it benefits government, big government. oh pls help us to behave ourselves

You have to express the way in which "justice" is conveniently profitable. I don't need to incorporate any notion of racial justice in order to deduce that a person coming from Africa, from a place where there might not be reliable electricity, where there might be crime, where there might be corruption, where the infrastructure might suck, where there's no safety net, that this person might want to live in Canada where there is all of these things.

That this person then perceive that the dominant historical demographic of the place might, at any point in time, "rise up" and turn against him and revel against the idea that his presence in Canada is legitimate, is also a going concern for that person. Immigrants want to live in Canada because it's nice and they need to find a way to affirm "yes, my presence here is justified".

Hence they develop a discourse whereby "nations" aren't real (because if nations aren't real then defending the Canadian nation against immigrant becomes nonsensical, which is beneficial to the immigrant) or where there's a concept of racial justice which just so happen to mean that he gets more thing and that his life in Canada is justified.

Can you prove that the same way you'd prove that a chair is in such and such a location? No. Can you convincingly point out that every that's being said happens to be in the material interest of those saying it? Yeah. Can you then declare that you will act in order to reach objectives which you consider to be in your material and social interest? Yeah.

The point is to be able to say "you work for yourself and what you want, and I work for myself and what I want" so that you don't get bogged down in a discussion about white privilege, unless it's to note that it's a rhetorical device designed to give non whites what they want and that you're not gonna fall for it.

>How could we be establish order ourselves without falling into their trap?

Nationalism and sovereignty are anathema to them. Their order is inherently globalist, so just don't establish a global order. Problem solved.

Did you just brag about getting trolled?

im more worried about this prophecy

yes this is old news.
Chris hedges wrote a book on it "death of the liberal class" its an interesting read even if he kinda goes all over the place and makes some contradicting statements. The book does talk about how and why the thing in your image is happening OP.

I assure you that was not a troll and no I'm not bragging, why am I replying to you though.

Thanks, that clarifies things nicely. Did reading any particular books help you develop your worldview-building skills? I'm going to try to read the Gulag Archipelago over the holidays.

youtu.be/sn4mVDtqi7g

I heard infinite jest is another good text against marxism, slate star codex I think wrote so. Is that so? I'm about to start this slab of 1,000 pages today.

>those are not digits which repeat
>leaf from the faggot tree

Nothing to see here.

...

>Gulag Archipelago

Is that the book Peterson say is basically the holy water to the demon of marxist communism? I've been meaning to read it as well, but have been too lazy to watch his videos again to get the name of the book. Thanks.

2

it's like Molyjew said:

Europeans are accommodating, until their not.

The cyclical nature of the universe is a natural law. Let's hope lefties cut their bullshit before the only answer left is DER TOTALEN KRIEG

off topic, I watch Nazi speeches nowadays to get hyped up for the gym.

3

yeah, i've read the abridged version the full version is apparently a real fuckin' slog. It's the thinking man's weapon against marxism apparently, but, it's too bad that the simple logic of obvserving marxism in action isn't enough to forever discredit it.

The wholr globalism thing has got me thinking that the best system to maintain freedom and an enriching cultural life is a quilt of nations that operate under the realpolitik or balance of power model, like during the Cold War or Metternich-era Europe. Stay separate, don't let anyone get too strong. Checks and balances, but at the level of international relations. Once you have a global order, like the World State in BNW, there's no one to oppose the people on top.

4

5

I'm trying to build a library.

Every movement spawns its own inverted opposite. The Left has employed ID politics for years, it follows that the Right would as well.

This screencap is a quote from Dr. Peterson. He knows that people, particularly young men, can make or break a society. Young men are almost always at the crux of revolution.

The problem is that there will be people, potential leaders, who will capitalize on this young, un-directed male energy...and maybe not for the best of ends. Some of our young men are lazy and easily entertained and preoccupied, so they might not be very useful. But others are more wild and curious, and raging at what they see. They have no wives or kids and they don't see much meaning in the future as it stands right now. These men are the kind that could easily fall for a charismatic leader type of man whose ideas could be disastrous in practice, but these young men probably won't be able to see the logical extreme end of those ideas until its too late. They also will be "underground" as Peterson says, where they will only grow stronger.

This may sound dumb, but a good fictitious example is Shredder from the original TMNT in 1990. His gang and illicit nightclub was full of young men from broken homes, full of rage, looking for guidance and meaning. He used them to further his agenda.

I believe that the "pendulum swinging the other way" is exactly what "they" want to happen. "They" always have the same strategy: create the problems in the shadows, offer the solution in the light. The solutions always happen to erode our rights and liberties a bit more and expand their power a bit more. Then the process repeats 10 or 20 years later.

6

Of course its happening. How do you think right wing fascism sparked up all through out Europe?

The commies took over everything, the media and the universities and the useful idiots were rioting in the streets and disrupting commerce. Sound familiar?

Fascism was a reactionary movement to the rise of communism, France had to put an outright ban on communism.

Here you go:
archive.org/details/TheGulagArchipelago-Threevolumes

Look at bill C-16 in Canada that was just passed.

It says you MUST call people by their preferred pronouns. The pronouns aren't even real words.

This law, its enforcement, and the legal judgements and precedents that are set in court due to it, will one day be used to silence the same SJW's who kicked and screamed in support of it. Think about that.

This is another step down the long road to 1984. This policing of speech, which tells you what you *must* say, not just what you can or can not say, will become the status quo to the youngest people today. They will not know a world without this law, so when the next step down the road is taken...that step being a broadening of the scope and reach of this law... that step will not seem so extreme to them. And so on, and so on.

This trudge to a Police State happens slowly, through osmosis, the gradual unconscious assimilation of ideas and "knowledge".

Once the SJW's and liberals realize they've been played, it's too late.

Here is Yuri Bezmenov, pay attention.

youtube.com/watch?v=vLqHv0xgOlc

"As I mentioned before exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures. Even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him concentration camp he will refuse to believe it until he is going to receive a kick in his fat bottom. When the military boot crashes his balls, then he will understand, but not before that."

This is all part of a cycle, it seems. There will be a mass purging of life in the next 20 years. We are overdue. What will be left and who will govern it? Who knows?

...

> Apparently striving for truth is the beast

The beast is the government corruption and the sick apathy.
Beasts do not care.
People of christ do care.

Then the leftists go "is that a threat."

This is what terrifies us minorities who are"red-pilled" -- this has been a society taking a concept and destroying via reductio ad absurdum. When I was much younger, the ideals of social justice appealed to me. I could eat anywhere I wish, and I did not have to worry about violence against me. The social programming that black parents do -- which is anti-white -- did not work on me. I could see the opportunity I was blessed with. However, the insanity of the social issues in the face of evidence as convinced me that the greatest blacks who ever lived were Booker T. Washington, Frederick Douglass, and Malcolm X -- insofar as his anti-white sentiment is ignored. They pushed hard work and personal improvement in our communities. With the current inane theories that strip minorities of their agency and whites' of their individuality, we see a resurgence that may drag all of us into a conflict we would very much like to avoid.

I would be up for killing leftists and communists. I've had enough of these brain dead faggots who want to have power over me and take my rights and prosperity away.

>t. former liberal and two time Obama voter who is woke.

Yes, they say that because they want that confrontation. They constantly bait people of authority in order to vilify and undermine them.
There is a benefit to anonymity in that.
As an user had mentioned earlier in the thread,
> leftists always need liberation from something.
They need names, labels. They need things in which they can hang their victimhood on. If they do not have this they are at a disatvantage. They also need the emotional charge that dramatic situations give them. without it, they have no momentum of emotion and have to think and speak logically.
None of these individuals have had to experience what most people would consider true suffering or pain. They have never experienced war, or violence. So to them, it is simply another experience that, when it becomes too much for them to bear, they will look to be extricated from by their imagined protectors. This has worked well for them in the past, where they agitate and them cry the victim. This can happen only so many times before outright retaliation is visited upon them by whomever they agitate.

The main problem now is that the damage that is being done is of the following kind: I don't trust the individualistic enlightenment paradigm anymore and I don't see that there's a way to repair it.

Islam doesn't help in that regard. It was the first system I saw where they really started to push the boundaries of the paradigm. I always understood the rational for the Martin Luther King slogan. The idea is: race is a superficial characteristic and therefore we can live in such a way that we don't take it into account. Claims to encourage diversity are actually about making sure people don't make the mistake of considering a superficial characteristic (race) as a fundamental characteristic like "the content of your character".

But then people started to call you racist and if you didn't like Islam, and they started to say that our commitment to diversity was such that we needed to embrace it to be good people. But that shit made no fucking sense since Islam precisely was something which was part of somebody's character. It's an ideological system that transmit values and so on.

That was the point at which I started to realize that there was something seriously wrong with the diversity narrative. Then of course there was a marked rise in race based rhetoric with an anti-white bend at which point I also started to realize that there was a second problem with the diversity train on top of questioning the feasibility of the MLK slogan.

We are all potentially fucked in an irreparable way. I know I'm not going back to what I was.

T H I S
H
I
S

This is almost certainly the case. Europe will once again see the resurgence of the right, they will play their hand more carefully this time round.

>Two-time Obama voter
>Black slang for redpilled

No, you're a Christmas Tree ornament.