I'm proud of you, son. You managed to see through the Marxist subversion that threatens your village...

I'm proud of you, son. You managed to see through the Marxist subversion that threatens your village. You are now on the path to becoming the hero that saves us all. It won't be easy. You have to spend your life pushing the metaphysical boulder up the hill. Many of them will hate you because they don't understand you. Just know you are doing the right thing and I love you.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=fInko6WL9No
youtu.be/8PB4h59nZP4?t=1712
youtube.com/watch?v=jSo5v5t4OQM
youtube.com/watch?v=DB9oUqIcX-c
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I love Peterson but he knows, deep down, that we have to go through the rebirth of the phoenix archetype to rescue the father from the underworld. You can feel his pain because he knows whats coming. People won't just sort themselves out.

So he's afraid the Alt-Right will seize power before sorting ourselves out?

He's good man. I'm watching his Biblical Series (right now III - God and the Hierarchy of Authority) and they are amazing

He's afraid we're literally too sorted.

youtube.com/watch?v=fInko6WL9No

this begs the question of what it is we need to sort out. I don't believe ni that civnat bullshit, natsoc is definitely the way to go. There seems to be unavoidable suffering to this path though... thoughts?

yeh they are really good, i just finished the first flood one, 10/10

He's deathly afraid of young people becoming "too right", he mentions this often, he thinks this is an unspeakable thought crime, basically, and should be avoided in whatever way possible (which he's doing by brainwashing them into accepting an alternative, neutered way of thinking that leads nowhere).

In before [citation needed]: youtu.be/8PB4h59nZP4?t=1712

I think he thinks if you sort yourself you won't be far right any longer. Which I don't think is at all obvious, but that seems to be the conclusion to which he has come. It's been some time since I watched his video on a message to the alt right, but as I recall his main argument was essentially horseshoe theory. He advocated remembering that what we hate most about SJWs is their totalitarianism, their collectivism, and their labeling of us, and practically begged alt right members to not fall into the same traps.

But I couldn't disagree with him, more. I think that horseshoe theory is self evidently bullshit, although of course there are similarities between what the alt right does and what SJWs do because to some degree they have the same origin. It's like the alt right realized that the left was using identity politics to force their agenda, primarily through the politics of race, and then
the right decided they wouldn't leave those weapons only to their enemies.

Beyond which, to someone like Peterson it probably does appear obvious that a white ethnostate will never manage to be created from the starting conditions of our society as it exists now. In that case, advocating for one, or even attempting to build one, is a terrifying perspective that's more designed to get a lot of people killed than accomplish anything else.

>There seems to be unavoidable suffering to this path though
He sees the suffering as unnecessary still. We usually tend to view the consequence of inaction right now as possibly causing infinite unimaginable suffering in the future. What will humanity resemble if humanity consists of Africans? If Somalia had another 2000 years under their belt, could high civilization even be probable? Possible?
He doesn't dislike conservative young people, he's recognized the patterns in the social space that form right before an authoritarian force manifests itself.

>He doesn't dislike conservative young people, he's recognized the patterns in the social space that form right before an authoritarian force manifests itself.


I fucking wish. Fuck this Weimar Republic 2 Electric Boogaloo

>2017
>not sorting yourself out as we speak

Thank you, OP. I needed to hear that. I think I know what to do now.

We all need to hear some motivational speech from time to time

If I were to describe the alt-right, "sorted" definitely wouldn't be the word I'd use. We're basically just a mess of conflicting political ideologies, conflicting religions, and various forms of purity spiraling. We can't even seem to reach a clear consensus on who's white and who's not.

>BASED Soul-Man.

Well, no, I've seen him make the same argument in a lot of videos where he says that politics is essentially an expression of one's personality type, and that multiple personality archetypes exist because no one of them alone can account for the entirety of the complexity necessary to run a society. Then he breaks it down into that the left scores higher on trait openness which makes them really good at innovating and being creative, but they score lower on trait conscientiousness which makes them terrible administrators who can't keep anything running. Then the right is basically an archetypal manifestation of the opposite, where they're great administrators, but can't innovate for shit.

So leaving aside for a moment that I think that's self evidently wrong, i.e. there are archetypal rightists who do manage to create, I think his big problem is one that highly intelligent people fall into far too often. He's in love with his own ideas. So it's like he's a personality psychologist so he sees every problem as being reflective of personality. There are plenty of explanations for why people hold different political opinions, but he's so convinced of his because that happens to be his field.

Which isn't to say that there's no data to prove he's right. Although I haven't seen the data, I would expect that a social scientist like him wouldn't make the claim without it, but as Jonathon Haidt is constantly trying to push, correlation does not imply causation, which is a mistake that I have seen Peterson make a number of times himself although he of all people ought not to. Suppose there's a high degree of correlation between personality and political outlook. Perhaps there's a third cause to both of those things, like for instance the degree to which one internalizes propaganda during childhood. Because political leaning is also highly correlated to things like what your parents' opinions were, your race, or most strongly your education level.

Peterson is comfy, but he is also a cuck. he doesn't take a truly objective position, because if he did he would realize Sup Forums was right.

If it takes me 20 years day by day will i chip away at this fucking meme factory for ball sniffers and vagina divers

So he thinks we're going to become right-wing terrorists? Is he correct in saying that?

Youre all devil worshippers
>MUH SNAKE DADDY

>He's in love with his own ideas.
They're not even his, they're Jung's.

Well and that's something he talks about, too. He says that especially for feckless people without responsibility in their lives, all meaning is sapped away until only suffering remains, and that's a miserable way to be. And then it's like those people decide they would just rather the entire world blows up because their suffering is unbearable. So there are, probably a large number of, people who would celebrate the apocalypse.

But at the same time, I think the alt right would prefer another chaotic restructuring because they are not in power, and the extant cultural hegemony is one that is openly hostile toward their viewpoint. So they want a reordering that would better reflect their values and better position them in the dominance hierarchy. Whereas the left, which has power despite perpetually pretending to be victims, want chaos and destruction just out of mendacity and vindictiveness.

But then you should remember how much Peterson talks about authoritarians, and then you see it's quite obvious he thinks that people who want the chaos and the destruction are essentially always totalitarian, so even though I might analyze the alt right's motives as more pure, well what of the purist communists, for instance? They just want to try it again so they can be in charge, and then come the mass murders. So why would he think the alt right would be any different?

Well, they're Jung's, but they're his as well. Because that's sort of the point of the University archetype. As Newton said, "if I have seen farther, it is because I have stood upon the shoulders of giants." Human know ledge is iterative, cumulative, additive. He assimilates Jung, synthesizes it with a number of other thinkers, notably Solzhenitsyn, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, and then adds his own contributions. That's sort of what Maps of Meaning is, in a sense, but it's also what every lecture you've ever heard is. Fuck, it's what we're doing right now. We're synthesizing what we learned from Peterson with the rest of our own personal experiences (including wildly different educational backgrounds), then coming together as a group so that the collective ideas can act themselves out.

>jordan peterson has found a way to logically make the case that you're a nazi but it doesn't matter because you clean up your room and are on the path to become a good guy

>If I were to describe the alt-right, "sorted" definitely wouldn't be the word I'd use
I'm referring to what he believes the end result would produce. I'm looking for the video right at the moment but he describes pic related as over "orderly". I guess I see that as completely attempting to sort ourselves within the parameters of reality/nature. It's just exclusive by nature.
>Perhaps there's a third cause to both of those things
I think he acknowledges this, just not very openly. He acknowledges biological correlation with IQ and the importance of being high IQ. He does make the claim about low IQ people being able to be moral though, so I know he doesn't completely align with us on a personal basis, but I feel like a lot of his archetypal ideas are completely compatible with the basic underlying ropes of the splintered alt-right groups.

youtube.com/watch?v=jSo5v5t4OQM

Well, I think he thinks there's no way it doesn't end in death, violence, suffering, and so forth. For instance, one obvious prediction might be that if we did organize into let's say an anti-government militia, that the government would come and WACO our asses faster than you could say The Turner Diaries. But another obvious prediction might be that the street clashes like we saw in Berkeley will continue to escalate, and since they've already escalated to the point of permanent sever injury, the only next step up is murders.

But on the other hand, yes I think he thinks that if we did manage to take over and forge a far-right white ethnostate somewhere that it would necessarily be totalitarian also, and that would necessarily mean mass killings.

>why would he think the alt right would be any different?

because the right's views are more grounded in reality, which will most certainly lead to a happier more balanced world in the long run. IQ, culture, and dominance hierarchies are unavoidable realities of the world that create rifts within society. The sooner we recognize these aspects of humanity as real and significant, the sooner we can act on them and make a society more true to the real world.

If we destroy this old system and set up a new one based on race realism, traditionalism, and individualism (National Socialism) that harbors an environment that empowers every individual and theoretically makes a totalitarian govt impossible.

If the alt-right becomes totalitarian it'll more than likely just end up eating its own. As much as you'd like to talk about "fixing" western civilization by removing nonwhites and gassing degenerates, you'll probably be pretty shocked and confused when you find that you're the one headed towards the gas chamber.

t-thanks dad :'D

I read this in his voice.

It's more than that, though, because I think he understands his own weaknesses, one of them being his own vast intelligence. And the man is wickedly brilliant. But intelligence does tend to manifest as arrogance, or narcissism, because being smarter than everyone else will make you look down on them even as they begin to look up to you.

But he's as human as anyone else, despite seeming to be in a constant quest for self sorting, and he fails sometimes.

Which isn't at all to say that Jungian-Petersonian personality analysis is necessarily incompatible with a political ideology (notwithstanding that he explicitly says he thinks all ideologies are bad). But neither do I think his full analysis could ever support white ethnic nationalism, or related ideas.

The idea isn't to start a Turner-esque fighting force. It's to keep exposing our ideas to the European public and naturally, over time with interaction with undesirable people/multiculturalism, they'll demand our policies take place. We can make the ethnostate manifest after 100 years.
This overnight meme needs to die and is holding us back.

>I think that horseshoe theory is self evidently bullshit
I don't think that's quite right. The main issue is that people believe radicalism is a sign of purity of ideology, so to speak. People on the far-right or far-left are more likely to be radicals, as radicals are more likely to cling to extreme beliefs, but what makes the far-right and far-left similar isn't the 'right' and 'left' aspect of that, it's the 'radicalism' aspect.

That is, the far-right and far-left are commonly seen as similar since their most extreme and vocal supporters believe that the end justify the means, that any sort of atrocity or censorship is justified to reach their goal. In this sense it's easy to see similarities, and if you're interacting with someone who's more 'radical' than he's right or left, then it doesn't matter that much whether he's right or left at all as long as he considers you to be your enemy.

People still don't understand what right/left actually means.

That along with the huge difference between white liberal and white conservative fertility rates and the fact that political orientation is largely heritable will definitely help.

>his full analysis could ever support white ethnic nationalism, or related ideas.
Wouldn't completely sorting ourselves out as human beings be the strife to create the Ubermensch? To eliminate most suffering through soft eugenics wherever possible? It's hard for me to empathize with inaction when it will undoubtedly lead to chaos.

Exactly, we need to push for peaceful political solutions while we still can. Civil war is absolute last resort and I don't think it should be something to promote or fantasize about. We can do this without costing any human life if we're smart about it.

>We can make the ethnostate manifest after 100 years.

By then (((they))) will have bred us out of existence through social marxism. They control the means to pass legislation and will not allow such "backtracking" on their policies. That only leaves us one option: armed, strategic, covert revolution. The real meme that needs to die is that they can track us anywhere. More effort needs to be made towards irl meetups and off-grid planning.

But see, the communists said essentially the exact same thing. The early Marxists were so convinced of the correctness of their own beliefs that they called dialectical materialism science, and branded anyone with objections as science deniers. It's a very modernist ideology. Meanwhile for all the evidence of race realism that Sup Forums has, which I happen to find quite convincing, it is undeniable that this is not the prevalent accepted opinion of contemporary scientists in the applicable fields. So then it's like why should we think that our approach actually is any more based in reality than the communist approach was, aside from our own personal biases?

Worse, the alt right seems to have a streak of utopianism about it, and that truly is one of the best right wing criticisms of the left. Men are flawed by nature. No hammering them with social coercion will ever make them into angels. Therefore no society will ever be angelic. We should not fall into that trap. If England, let's say, was ethnically cleansed of everyone who wasn't purely English as might be established by some DNA test, let's say, there would still be crime, conflict, and people making one another suffer.

So then you think, well there's obvious problems with our society as it exists, and you're right. But your solution is to just trash the whole thing, and you're not right. Because if it has worked heretofore, then it necessarily must have got something right, which incidentally is the main idea of classical conservatism. Scrap that and replace it with something based on essentially your own personal philosophy and you can be sure that you're going to fuck things up just as bad as Mao Tse Tung did, and for the exact same reasons.

>discover jbp 4 months ago
>watch MoM, get psychologically and philosophically slapped over the course of 40 hours of lectures
>gave up the ganja
>gave up tobacco
>started exercising 3 times/week
>started socializing again
>started sorting out my uni courses that I had abandoned for 3 years
>currently doing the self authoring exercise and looking to fit even more productive activities in my schedule
Life has never looked brighter. Thank you professor, you helped me save what I have left of my young years and for the first time I'm looking forward for the future.

No dude, communists literally want a global utopia. We just want some clay to call our own or for the Euros to remove invaders.

IF it's possible to achieve these types of policies with the declining demographics of the US. There's also the very real possibility becoming dysphoria jew like, perpetually stuck at the top of social stratas in nations all over the world if they become the minorities. This is entire other hell we have to avoid. Reversing the demographic trends are going to have to be more assertive than closing the border and deporting illegal aliens.

So that's a very real possibility, but then you have to look at the history of revolutions (which I have) and what you start to see is that your analysis mostly doesn't fit. Oh, it's a very accurate model for what happens to radical muslims, for instance. They gain successes, which gets them followers, which gets them attention from the governments they attack, which gets them losses, which makes them point blame, which makes them point blame at each other, so they enter a purity spiral, and finally they kill each other for not being devout enough which is their explanation for the losses.

But for most revolutions, or at least the successful ones anyway, your value to the revolution is related to your effectiveness as a fighter. Read Yuri Bezmenov on the matter. You want the revolutionaries to be good revolutionaries. Of course, after the revolution those guys had better watch out, as for instance Ernst Rohm found out. But even that's avoidable by proving greater value to the normalization of the new government.

>So leaving aside for a moment that I think that's self evidently wrong, i.e. there are archetypal rightists who do manage to create, I think his big problem is one that highly intelligent people fall into far too often. He's in love with his own ideas. So it's like he's a personality psychologist so he sees every problem as being reflective of personality. There are plenty of explanations for why people hold different political opinions, but he's so convinced of his because that happens to be his field.


This is the problem people run into when they don't actually engage the field but instead picking up a single person's work.

None of that shit is his idea. He basically combines Jung with modern "big 5" personality assessments and research into what correlates with political views. Then he draws his own conclusions which aren't necessarily what other people draw.


The person who isn't familiar with the field sees one person conjuring shit out of nowhere.

Here is the "data" you haven't seen explained.
> Because political leaning is also highly correlated to things like what your parents' opinions were, your race, or most strongly your education level.

Try this, your personality is probably influenced by all of those things. The claim that personality is linked to politics is simple.
>personality is determined by multiple choice test.
>on average those who self identify as left chose new experiences over everything.
>on average those who self identify as right leaning people chose order over everything.

Then we get personal opinion,
"choosing openness isn't always best, choosing order isn't always best, its about society interacting meaningfully for balance".

We aren't looking at causes. We aren't claiming causes.

>So then it's like why should we think that our approach actually is any more based in reality than the communist approach was, aside from our own personal biases?
To literally protect our families

We don't have 100 years.

We don't even have 30-40 years now, we're going to be minorities in many of our countries before 2050.

By that time I don't think the country could be held together even if you wanted it to.

I wrote it in his voice, eh? Because I'm acting out the Jordan B. Peterson archetype to sort myself, bucko.

>Worse, the alt right seems to have a streak of utopianism about it, and that truly is one of the best right wing criticisms of the left. Men are flawed by nature
Of course there's an ideal to strive for, but acknowledgement of our own predilections/predispositions is literally the National Socialist ideology.

(video below when you have time)
youtube.com/watch?v=DB9oUqIcX-c
>your own personal philosophy
Absolutely not, it's exclusive, but not personal

My take on it was that he meant going through all minute aspects of our individual lives and doing all the little things that had been put off for later. In the sorting process, later is now.

With regard to the larger society the current trend of demographics requires action. Molyneux has argued that destruction of the Federal Reserve and the end of the welfare state might substantially change the demographics because poorer immigrants would simply leave. I think that view is wishful thinking. Cutting off the gibs would trigger riots which would result in urban anarchy. There is going to be suffering no matter how things are resolved.

Thank you. It's rare to meet such a well-spoken person on this website. You seem to have a good understanding of the subject and your posts are insightful. That's all. What surprises me is that you're this fast and typing all this stuff.

Like I said before. We need to start making more Sup Forums meetup threads (on /soc/ if necessary) talk out our solutions in person with one another and basically meme irl.

Just think about how Hitler rose to power (like the actual physical actions he took) and do that.

He has succeeded. I finally understand

"If you form an ethnostate you'll end up gassing each other!"

Kikes love this line

>when you dont have the attention span for his lectures

sort yourself out nigger

Isn't it a possibility, though? Not necessarily gassing each other for being 'not white enough', but if you've paid any attention to the alt-right as a whole, then you already know that the different communities are at each other's throats for being not 'pure' enough or being shills, since they're afraid their own community might get subverted or destroyed. What makes you think all these people with different opinions would suddenly be able to work as a consistent whole?

Well you're right in a way, but you're wrong in a way. Because I've actually started to become very self educated in what the process of changing peoples' minds is truly like, and the sad fact is that it doesn't seem that anyone knows. Although a lot of people are suddenly working on the problem, notably climate scientists who are perplexed that something that seems to obvious to them is thoroughly unconvincing of everyone else.

So a good example might be how every time there's a muslim terror attack there's an upspike in converts to their religion. Which is such a fucking perverse thing to think about, because it's like why the fuck would you join the people trying to kill you. But what seems to be going on is that lefties are so convinced of the #notallmuslims meme that they decide to show the world they know islam better than the violent muslims do by converting. And then the muslims point to that as the work of fucking allah, because why the hell else would anyone do something so nutty. I've had muslims rub that in my face (after *I* told it to them) as proof for why I'm wrong about things.

But something else happens, too. Even more people turn to the far right after every islamic attack.

So then what happens when that system achieves saturation? For instance, right now everyone in the United States has an opinion on abortion, and nobody's changing anyone else's mind. But when you get that same situation with islamic terror, and half your population is violently in favor of islam, and the other half is violently opposed, what happens next? You think it obvious that the sort of late comer white nationalists will win, but I think the only thing that's obvious is that it will bring rivers of blood.

>(like the actual physical actions he took)
If you go do some stupid Dylan Roof shit, you're going to fuck it up for everyone else. Quit talking this shit and just meet up with some guys to discuss politics.

thanks, dad.

Dude, I'm just being funny when I say Irish aren't white

>every time there's a muslim terror attack there's an upspike in converts to their religion
sauce?
>I've had muslims rub that in my face (after *I* told it to them) as proof for why I'm wrong about things.
wew lad that perpetual cycle though. Absolutely insane.
>but I think the only thing that's obvious is that it will bring rivers of blood.
WN are going to be the only people offering a solution to the inevitable rivers of blood. The only question is, how much blood will have to be spilled to reset it? It's going to be increasingly worse as time goes on if action becomes necessary.

>What makes you think all these people with different opinions would suddenly be able to work as a consistent whole?
2016

I think it's obvious that most people have essentially zero understanding of the alt right, and that's been the case since they got on anyone's radar. Most people, I think, merely view them as the worst stereotype of a neo-nazi and that's it. So they have no idea what people on the alt right believe, so then how the hell do they know if they're radical or what? So then to say that they're radical the way the people on the far left are is really more a reflection of the speaker's own stereotypes than it is a reflection of reality.

Maybe you're right about the left-right political spectrum, although I would point to history and say it's really a lasting element of the French revolution. But Peterson addresses this too, when he discusses SJWs. Because if you ever talk to an SJW about social justice, what you'll find is that they don't have the first damn clue what they're talking about. They believe it like hell, but they don't understand it. But that's not entirely true, because they do have some understanding. Like, maybe they get 10% of the whole ideology. But then they meet up with another SJW who also knows 10%. And maybe they have a lot of overlap, but they're not exactly the same. So they might share 8% of knowledge of the whole ideology in common, but each brings 2% the other doesn't, giving us 12% overall. Well, you gather enough of them together, and then they can collectively piece together the entire ideology which then acts itself out, and so that's what we see with the Berkeley bike lock attack.

But maybe it's the same with left-right. Maybe we don't need to understand it, if we're just in big enough groups. And maybe that's what politics truly is.

>natsoc
You have to be absolutely fucking retarded to think socialism works at all. You fucking kike cock sucking piece of shit. HURR DURR, BIG GUBMENT WERKS IF ITS MADE OF WYYYE PEEPOL. Please, fuck off and read you Keynesian subhuman.

Well I don't think Peterson would ever advocate inaction. I think he's quite vocal that inaction has consequences exactly like action does. But I also think the notion of one dominant political archetype is directly anathema to Peterson's broader analysis.

The real issue we need to be afraid of is infights because of ideological purity, rather than the "let's gas everyone who isn't 100% pure bavarian phenotype" meme.

Good luck with that lad.

tl;dr on that picture?

i cant i dont have the attention span

I'm sympathetic, I truly am. But the ideology is deeply flawed, I think, if only because it hasn't been fully thought through. And if you want to maintain commitment to it, you had better figure out the obvious criticisms that you will inevitably face and come up with answers to them.

You know that this was posted by a nigger when he doesn't understand the difference between national socialism and socialism.If your retarded nigger ass took some time and read the NSDAP program you would realize how idiotic you sound

He has the manic qualities of a meth hobo mixed with a large IQ and a history of psychedelics resulting in thinking he's onto IT in such a strong way that he feels now compelled to let everyone know what IT is, and come to find out IT is a Joseph Campbell Cult.

You're claiming that you can analyze personality through factor analysis and word association. That's a pretty broad claim.

Anyway, I fully realize that #1 this isn't my field (my field is history) and #2 Peterson is synthesizing the ideas of others. I think if you read my other posts you'll see I already admit as much.

However, Peterson's position on personality and politics is not in dispute, nor is his commitment to his position.

>figure out the obvious criticisms that you will inevitably face and come up with answers to them.
Will do, working on it everyday. Thanks for stopping by
>tl;dr on that picture?
A polish mudshark that posted a video about being a single mother. Went viral a week ago or so, ask around about it, there's so grade A may mays out there about it.

Again, I'm sympathetic. But emotional response to external threats isn't the best way to judge rationality.

I think Dr. Peterson addresses this, too. He says if we don't take the gains of "conservatism" over the past year or so and find a permanent fix this time, we won't get another chance in 30 or so years to wait for the political pendulum to shift back. Society will be broken by the authoritarian left forever.

I think the easiest thing to push for is revealing all political connections to the public. Constant non-stop information revealing politicians as the puppets they are. Constantly highlighting the puppeteer's hands, to the point where the show is an obvious farce.

Keep trying.

Natsoc is the most practical ideology for combating (((them))) and reversing our decline

They might be able to work together, but there's no guarantee they won't end up betraying each other in the end. Like we've said, the infighting within the alt-right is already insane and it's still just a tiny movement.

So you bring up something interesting. Posting George Lincoln Rockwell is destined to make others dismiss you immediately. However, they would dismiss all of us immediately for just talking about these ideas. So then we must ask if we should turn to Rockwell and embrace the stigma? Because that doesn't seem to have worked for anyone ever in the past.

>But emotional response to external threats isn't the best way to judge rationality.
That's a pretty bold claim to propose we're prue emotional reactionaries. I don't know if you're tracking the situation in SA at the moment, but I'd like to avoid that fate for my grandchildren and nation. To propose that the trends we're witnessing will just magically evaporate when the European population widdles, will prove to be a fatal misjudgement.
It's assess the data we have at the moment to attempt to predict trends, or literally gamble the future of the west off of optimism.

Kind of you to say. I suppose this is the product of an education in the humanities. On the other hand, perhaps I am not as quick as you think.

So to confirm it is exclusively beta losers who love this guy right?

The reason why some people today join islam is because they go by the rule "if you can't beat them, join them". And it's funny, because this is just history repeating itself. If I remember correctly, in early islam times when Mohamed was still alive, he managed to take over a city by convincing the local elites to conspire with him against the majority population. And it's the same thing that is happening in Europe right now.

thank

Sounds like you don't so no.

>So then we must ask if we should turn to Rockwell and embrace the stigma?
Not in the sense of the visceral or vulgar aspects, but in the confidence aspect. The only reason I would ever show anyone GLR is if they were already open or curious about the idea. It'd be counterproductive if I showed it to 90% of people. Now, Jared Taylor is much more accessible to the Average American and is a good representative to attract the target demographic. We don't want (((neonazis))) and thugs, we want decent people who just care about community, family, and nation.

Yes, you're right. But it's far worse than that. Because I promise you there are infiltrators who are also attempting to subvert the group. We see them all the time on Sup Forums, and call them out as shills. They love that, because that lets them accuse genuine users of being shills, and that just divides the group even more.

So it's like, is the solution to division to embrace one another and not turn on each other? Because that also means to embrace the shills. One common tactic they employ is to be actual Nazis, who advocate actual violence, because they know that can undermine any movement.

I don't think we have figured out a great answer to this yet. I thought the alt right's came the closest I have ever seen, and it nearly worked. But not quite.

For a long time I believed that separating politics into right-wing and left-wing is completely absurd bullshit, but I eventually figured out what I believe is the fundamental difference between any left and any right ideology. This includes political believes such as libertarianism and nationalism which, on the first glance, don't seem to have much in common.

The main difference between right-wing thinking and left-wing thinking is that the right focuses on success, power, accomplishments and heroes, while the left focuses on failures, the oppressed, those that are unable to stand up and fight. Roughly speaking, of course.

You can think of it this way: Conservativism aims to preserve the accomplisments of the past. Libertarianism aims to give each individuum the freedom to achieve something and forge his own path. Nationalism aims to preseve the nation, which is seen as something extremely valuable. In this sense they're all similar in that they're something 'good' that needs to be preserved, or an archetypical hero you need to look up to, someone you can aspire to.

The left-wing is different: Communism aims to attack the failures of capitalism and help the working class. SJWism is exactly the same, but since students don't identify as members of the 'working class' the whole focus shifted to the power struggle between races and genders. Any sort of left-wing nanny state stuff aims to help the people that can't do it on their own. You see similar patterns all over the place. For example, the 'right wing' look at animals is that we're better than animals since we can think. The left wing view is that we're similar, since they can feel, and that they deserve to be protected since they're weaker.

I think it's a pattern you see all over the place once you developed a feeling for it, and since I discovered it both right and left seem to be important on some level, as long as it's balanced. The right is the father, so to speak, the left the mother.

Isn't the Daily Stormer one of the most popular "far-right" websites out there? I take it that's probably not a good thing.

>alt-right
>white

Where were you during HWNDU?

The sad thing is the shills are usually successful in converting people to unironic extremism by pretending to be extremists. And then you have the crazies like Varg who are just like that anyway.

>sauce?
I think I read that in Dabiq magazine.

>wew lad that perpetual cycle though. Absolutely insane.
I keep experiencing it now. I think it means I am becoming influential.

>WN are going to be the only people offering a solution to the inevitable rivers of blood.
I think you underestimate the normie's deep desire for peace and safety. They're not going to do what puts them at risk. And they're programmed to believe the response is what puts them at risk, not the original violence. Consider a kid who fights back against a schoolyard bully. He gets punished for fighting. Consider the advice given to muggers. Just give the criminal what they want, violence only makes matters worse. They're not going to respond the way you expect.

you are slaying this thread. is this even your final form? 10/10

Actually, I guess Varg isn't an extremist, but he still seems to be trying everything in his power to intentionally divide the movement and cause more infighting.

>Life has never looked brighter. Thank you professor, you helped me save what I have left of my young years and for the first time I'm looking forward for the future.
Wonderful post, user, thanks for sharing

This whole thread is pretty interesting desu. Surprised Sup Forums can be this civil honestly but I am glad nonetheless.

Peterson is a great self-help coach, but politically he's a Jew-enabler.

Yes, I'm sure that's part of it, too. But I think the main of it is sheeple refusing to believe the evidence that contradicts their ideology.

I have to agree. Once (((they))) are gone, then we can hammer-out a better society.

I concur...