It’s not about politics

[Anonymous]

 

[fergal_41]

INTERVIEW REQUEST: Hi - I'm a music journalist who has written for CLASH, the Quietus, Drowned in Sound and I'm working on a feature and would love to speak to Morrissey fans on here who are still big fans of Morrissey in spite of what he has said over the last 6-12 months. I've had a great response on here from people who are no longer fans/no longer want to watch him live, but I would love to hear from people who continue to support the man. My emails are open at [email protected]. We can discuss terms and I would not quote anyone without having gained their permission whatsoever. Thanks

 

[Anonymous]

So, in closing: what we learned from this thread is that it is about politics.

/fin.

 

[Anonymous]

Muslims wouldn't even be living in the west in any great numbers if a group of people hadn't thought it would be a good idea to use their influence to let them in as it would make their own status in those countries more secure.
Who was behind a lot of the post-war immigration legislation? Not Muslims. Not black people. Those groups didn't have any political power or media influence in the west. Who did? That was harder to understand before the internet.

"In 1996, the Runnymede Trust established the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia [...]
The Commission's report, Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, was published in November 1997 [...]

"The Runnymede Trust is a race equality think tank founded in 1968 by Jim Rose and Anthony Lester [...]

"Lester was born into a Jewish family and was educated at the City of London School."
[...]

"Born into an "elite" Jewish family, Rose was educated at Rugby School and New College, Oxford."

Jewish groups back calls for Tory Islamophobia inquiry in solidarity with Muslim leaders
Published time: 7 June 2018
"The Jewish Council For Racial Equality (JCORE) and the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) have come out in support of Muslims leaders and bodies, by endorsing calls for an investigation into alleged Islamophobia within the Tory party.

The show of solidarity from two Jewish groups, comes hot on the heels of chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum (CMF), Mohammed Amin, accusing the Tories of failing to tackle the deep-rooted problem of Islamophobia in the party, stating that they are hoping the issue “will magically go away.""
https://www.rt.com/uk/429002-jewish-groups-tory-islamophobia/

/fin.

 

[Anonymous]

it is absolutely about politics. He is openly using his platform to ask people to vote for a party that comprises of racists, thugs, Nazis and Holocaust deniers.

https://www.hopenothate.org.uk/2018...rs-active-anne-marie-waters-britain-movement/

 

[StalinsPipe]

So to illustrate your point about Israel you link to two Jews, which is like if I wanted to convince you that smoking is good for you so I link you to videos of two guys who own tobacco companies.
The only thing Shapiro and Maher debunk is the idea that they're capable of providing impartial analysis.

Shapiro who says he "couldn't care less about the browning of America", but the thought of the same thing happening in Israel keeps him awake at night. In fact he's fine with Israeli troops injuring thousands of people to ensure no "browning" occurs.
Then he gets the likes of you to cheer him on just because he talks fast and went to Harvard or wherever, and because he "owns" blue haired feminists and BLM supporters from time to time which we know requires such incredible brainpower to do

And yes, Maher is Jewish too. His mother is a Hungarian Jew which makes him Jewish as well in Jewish law (it's passed down on the mother's side). He was raised in the Catholic church by his father but left the church when he was 13 which was around the same time he found out his mother was Jewish.

A bit like his late friend Christopher Hitchens, he also found out later in life that he had Jewish lineage on his mother's side. There's an interview with him on YouTube conducted shortly before his death where he's asked about anti-semitism and his response is "I think we should do more to deserve it". Not "they", not "you", but "we".
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Maher has a similar attitude, judging by the views he espouses.

That was neo-conservative Christopher Hitchens; Ben Shapiro also has neo-conservative tendencies, as do plenty of other prominent 'conservative' American Jews like Bill Kristol. Neo-conservatism is basically a Jewish ideology, whereby through lies and deceit they invade/sanction/otherwise attack Arab/Middle Eastern countries in "defence" of Israel. That's what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Palestine, and is now happening with Iran and Syria.

If Iran doesn't want new sanctions placed on it, literally all they have to do is say "we support Israel" and the notion of sanctions would disappear almost immediately. Then they can begin trading with USA/Israel, open American banks, open a chain of McDonald's restaurants, and all would be forgiven.

Look how quickly the view of Kim Jong-Un changed in the American (Jewish) media when it began to look like he would hold talks with the USA (Israel's pitbull). Almost immediately it was announced that North Korea may open, you guessed it, a chain of McDonald's. Gotta love that American style freedom and democracy!

It seems you subscribe to a few of the main tenets of neo-conservatism too bhops (and Derek); the alt-lite and neoconservatives aren't so different after all (which is the typical any time American Jews dominate a movement, defence of Israel becomes the front and centre object of concern).

The same with Trumpism, 'America first' became 'Israel first' in the blink of an eye, so fast that most of you who still support him didn't even notice the shift. The defence of Israel's border, the moving of the embassy became of paramount importance while the
wall along the USA's southern border got pushed aside yet again for another while longer, a year and a half into his Presidency.

When the Democrats likely take control of the house in the elections coming up this year, there will be no hope at all of a wall being built. But at least Israel got 'defended'! (Not that Chuck Schumer and co. would have voted against the moving of the US embassy or anything, Schumer praised Trump for it you'll be shocked to learn -- although not shocked if you're aware of Schumer's ethno-religious background and the role that plays in informing his decisions.)

Just like it informs the decisions of black Americans, Hispanic Americans, and every other racial group apart from white people who have been trained/bullied/forced over the years into not think tribally, something which every other group in existence still does and will continue to do, which we often choose to forget/ignore. And which is why all those other groups will survive, while white people will be minorities in many currently majority white countries (including the countries you, I, Truth, and Derek live in), within half a century. At least we moved embassies for other groups and kept our mouths shut so we weren't called racists or "neo nazis", am I right?

Nazi scum.

 

[StalinsPipe]

Jordan Peterson is a pseduo-intellectual, who uses big words and false profundity to appear a genius, but you're anti-semite scum.

You can both go f*** yourself.

 

[vegan.cro spirit# 765]

Jordan Peterson is a pseduo-intellectual, who uses big words and false profundity to appear a genius, but you're anti-semite scum.

You can both go f*** yourself.

WTF? First Skinny,Pep and Eternal Victim 12 inches accuse Moz of being dramatic, and now, 5 minutes later we have STALINSpipe accusing person x of antisemitism.
STALIN who did many Jewish purges.
I think there is a strong possibility this forum is on acid.

 

[Anonymous]

Jordan Peterson is a pseduo-intellectual, who uses big words and false profundity to appear a genius, but you're anti-semite scum.

You can both go f*** yourself.

"Pseudo-intellectual" -- I'm not Peterson's biggest fan but the man has a PhD and has been a Professor for over 25 years, which included a brief time spent teaching at Harvard. He also has an IQ of over 150, if those things matter to you, which I assume they do since you're here questioning his intellect. He's a trained psychoanalyst; he's the opposite of a pseudo-intellectual. What have you done in your life to make you think you're qualified to question someone's credentials, especially someone as successful as he has been?

Why don't you just tell it like it is: "I don't like some of his views so it makes me feel better about myself to assume he's an intellectual fraud, then I can remain cozily in my bubble where nobody of intelligence ever disagrees with me"? --- that's a more accurate assessment of your views; the problem here is with you, not with Peterson.

What seems more likely: that Peterson has had a 25 year career lecturing at the highest level despite being a pseudo-intellectual, or you can't handle someone more intelligent than you disagreeing profoundly with you about numerous aspects of our society, so you have to try to tear him down in your mind to protect your own worldview and not have to challenge yourself about anything?

Yeah, I'll go with the latter.

I disagree enormously with what many intellectuals on the modern left have to say, but I never question their intelligence. Maybe I'd question other things, like their moral framework, their underlying motivations for believing and saying certain things etc., but never their intelligence because that would just make me look stupid.

So my advice to you is simply this: tidy your room, bucko.

 

[StalinsPipe]

"Pseudo-intellectual" -- I'm not Peterson's biggest fan but the man has a PhD and has been a Professor for over 25 years, which included a brief time spent teaching at Harvard. He also has an IQ of over 150, if those things matter to you, which I assume they do since you're here questioning his intellect. He's a trained psychoanalyst; he's the opposite of a pseudo-intellectual. What have you done in your life to make you think you're qualified to question someone's credentials, especially someone as successful as he has been?

Why don't you just tell it like it is: "I don't like some of his views so it makes me feel better about myself to assume he's an intellectual fraud, then I can remain cozily in my bubble where nobody of intelligence ever disagrees with me"? --- that's a more accurate assessment of your views; the problem here is with you, not with Peterson.

What seems more likely: that Peterson has had a 25 year career lecturing at the highest level despite being a pseudo-intellectual, or you can't handle someone more intelligent than you disagreeing profoundly with you about numerous aspects of our society, so you have to try to tear him down in your mind to protect your own worldview and not have to challenge yourself about anything?

Yeah, I'll go with the latter.

I disagree enormously with what many intellectuals on the modern left have to say, but I never question their intelligence. Maybe I'd question other things, like their moral framework, their underlying motivations for believing and saying certain things etc., but never their intelligence because that would just make me look stupid.

So my advice to you is simply this: tidy your room, bucko.

Peterson may be smart, in that he got his PhD, and lectured at renowned universities, but he isn't an intellectual, and there is a distinction between the two. Read his books, then you'll know he's a pseduo-intellectual. Here, I'll give you an extract:

"Procedural knowledge, generated in the course of heroic behavior, is not organized and integrated within the group and the individual as a consequence of simple accumulation. Procedure “a,” appropriate in situation one, and procedure “b,” appropriate in situation two, may clash in mutual violent opposition in situation three. Under such circumstances intrapsychic or interpersonal conflict necessarily emerges. When such antagonism arises, moral revaluation becomes necessary. As a consequence of such revaluation, behavioral options are brutally rank-ordered, or, less frequently, entire moral systems are devastated, reorganized and replaced. This organization and reorganization occurs as a consequence of “war,” in its concrete, abstract, intrapsychic, and interpersonal variants. In the most basic case, an individual is rendered subject to an intolerable conflict, as a consequence of the perceived (affective) incompatibility of two or more apprehended outcomes of a given behavioral procedure. In the purely intrapsychic sphere, such conflict often emerges when attainment of what is desired presently necessarily interferes with attainment of what is desired (or avoidance of what is feared) in the future. Permanent satisfactory resolution of such conflict (between temptation and “moral purity,” for example) requires the construction of an abstract moral system, powerful enough to allow what an occurrence signifies for the future to govern reaction to what it signifies now. Even that construction, however, is necessarily incomplete when considered only as an “intrapsychic” phenomena. The individual, once capable of coherently integrating competing motivational demands in the private sphere, nonetheless remains destined for conflict with the other, in the course of the inevitable transformations of personal experience. This means that the person who has come to terms with him- or herself—at least in principle—is still subject to the affective dysregulation inevitably produced by interpersonal interaction. It is also the case that such subjugation is actually indicative of insufficient “intrapsychic” organization, as many basic “needs” can only be satisfied through the cooperation of others."

He wraps his writing up in common known truths, such as "tidy your room", as you said, and his books are essentially self-help books. But between all of these known truths, he writes things that sound really profound and intellectual, yet they don't make any sense, nor can they be proven in any way. This the sort of writing that is written to make the reader feel stupid or that they can't understand it because it is profound. Because of this, they believe that Peterson surely must be right, great and highly intelligent, yet, he doesn't actually say anything of any worth or intellectual value, and he doesn't say anything that can be proven or disproven.

Furthermore, because his ideas can't be disproven or proven this is why he appears to "win" debates. Because of the seeming profundity of his ideas and writing, when he debates and his opponent challenges his views, he tells them that isn't what he meant or that they are interpreting it incorrectly, as happened when he was interviewed by Cathy Newman of Channel 4. In this sense, he is very similar to the sort of religious fundamentalist Dawkins or Hitchens would debate, in that their ideas couldn't be proven or disproven.

He isn't the intellectual people make him out to be, and he certainly isn't a new Messiah.

 

[StalinsPipe]

WTF? First Skinny,Pep and Eternal Victim 12 inches accuse Moz of being dramatic, and now, 5 minutes later we have STALINSpipe accusing person x of antisemitism.
STALIN who did many Jewish purges.
I think there is a strong possibility this forum is on acid.

The username is just to wind up righties. Stalin was scum and betrayed everything that Lenin wanted. I might be a lefty, but I ain't no tankie.
But, at least the Soviet Union saved Europe from fascism.

 

[Cornflakes]

The username is just to wind up righties. Stalin was scum and betrayed everything that Lenin wanted. I might be a lefty, but I ain't no tankie.
But, at least the Soviet Union saved Europe from fascism.

You may be speaking too soon...

 

[vegan.cro spirit# 852]

The username is just to wind up righties. Stalin was scum and betrayed everything that Lenin wanted. I might be a lefty, but I ain't no tankie.
But, at least the Soviet Union saved Europe from fascism.

Yeah you are winding up everybody
USA saved Europe, and sadly Stalin.
Stalin shot half the Russians that fought Hitler and sent the other half to the tundra. Lenin was likely insane from all the killing:

Lenin's letter to G. F. Fyodorov ordering "mass terror, shoot and deport the hundreds of prostitutes who are making drunkards of the soldiers, former officers and the like." in Nizhni, where the Czech white forces were amassing. Kaganovich implemented the terror.

August 9, 1918

Comrade Fyodorov,

It is obvious that a whiteguard insurrection is being prepared in Nizhni. You must strain every effort, appoint three men with dictatorial powers (yourself, Markin and one other), organise immediately mass terror, shoot and deport the hundreds of prostitutes who are making drunkards of the soldiers, former officers and the like.

Not a minute of delay.

I can’t understand how Romanov could leave at a time like this!

I do not know the bearer. His name is Alexei Nikolayevich Bobrov. He says he worked in Vyborgskaya Storona District in Petrograd (from 1916).... Previously worked in Nizhni in 1905.

Judging by his credentials, he can be trusted. Check up on this and set him to work.

Peters, Chairman of the Extraordinary Commission, says that they also have reliable people in Nizhni.

You must act with all energy. Mass searches. Execution for concealing arms. Mass deportation of Mensheviks and unreliables. Change the guards at warehouses, put in reliable people.

They say Raskolnikov and Danishevsky are on their way to see you from Kazan.

Read this letter to the friends and reply by telegraph or telephone.

Yours,
Lenin


SHOOT EVERBODY!!!!!!

The HOOCHIE COOCHIE DANCERS:SHOT

BEER DRINKERS SHOT

 

[bhops]

Peterson may be smart, in that he got his PhD, and lectured at renowned universities, but he isn't an intellectual, and there is a distinction between the two. Read his books, then you'll know he's a pseduo-intellectual. Here, I'll give you an extract:

"Procedural knowledge, generated in the course of heroic behavior, is not organized and integrated within the group and the individual as a consequence of simple accumulation. Procedure “a,” appropriate in situation one, and procedure “b,” appropriate in situation two, may clash in mutual violent opposition in situation three. Under such circumstances intrapsychic or interpersonal conflict necessarily emerges. When such antagonism arises, moral revaluation becomes necessary. As a consequence of such revaluation, behavioral options are brutally rank-ordered, or, less frequently, entire moral systems are devastated, reorganized and replaced. This organization and reorganization occurs as a consequence of “war,” in its concrete, abstract, intrapsychic, and interpersonal variants. In the most basic case, an individual is rendered subject to an intolerable conflict, as a consequence of the perceived (affective) incompatibility of two or more apprehended outcomes of a given behavioral procedure. In the purely intrapsychic sphere, such conflict often emerges when attainment of what is desired presently necessarily interferes with attainment of what is desired (or avoidance of what is feared) in the future. Permanent satisfactory resolution of such conflict (between temptation and “moral purity,” for example) requires the construction of an abstract moral system, powerful enough to allow what an occurrence signifies for the future to govern reaction to what it signifies now. Even that construction, however, is necessarily incomplete when considered only as an “intrapsychic” phenomena. The individual, once capable of coherently integrating competing motivational demands in the private sphere, nonetheless remains destined for conflict with the other, in the course of the inevitable transformations of personal experience. This means that the person who has come to terms with him- or herself—at least in principle—is still subject to the affective dysregulation inevitably produced by interpersonal interaction. It is also the case that such subjugation is actually indicative of insufficient “intrapsychic” organization, as many basic “needs” can only be satisfied through the cooperation of others."

He wraps his writing up in common known truths, such as "tidy your room", as you said, and his books are essentially self-help books. But between all of these known truths, he writes things that sound really profound and intellectual, yet they don't make any sense, nor can they be proven in any way. This the sort of writing that is written to make the reader feel stupid or that they can't understand it because it is profound. Because of this, they believe that Peterson surely must be right, great and highly intelligent, yet, he doesn't actually say anything of any worth or intellectual value, and he doesn't say anything that can be proven or disproven.

Furthermore, because his ideas can't be disproven or proven this is why he appears to "win" debates. Because of the seeming profundity of his ideas and writing, when he debates and his opponent challenges his views, he tells them that isn't what he meant or that they are interpreting it incorrectly, as happened when he was interviewed by Cathy Newman of Channel 4. In this sense, he is very similar to the sort of religious fundamentalist Dawkins or Hitchens would debate, in that their ideas couldn't be proven or disproven.

He isn't the intellectual people make him out to be, and he certainly isn't a new Messiah.

I'd agree that the above which you have posted is a nonsensical word salad, however when it comes to presenting his ideas in lectures or even TV interviews I've always found Peterson to be fairly straightforward and logical. I think even someone with a basic intellect can grasp the concepts he puts forward, the Cathy Newman interview being a perfect example. And if we are going to say who 'won' and 'lost' that debate there really isn't a contest, he crushed her and didn't even seem to have to get out of second gear to do it.

 

[vegan.cro spirit# 852]

Peterson may be smart, in that he got his PhD, and lectured at renowned universities, but he isn't an intellectual, and there is a distinction between the two. Read his books, then you'll know he's a pseduo-intellectual. Here, I'll give you an extract:

"Procedural knowledge, generated in the course of heroic behavior, is not organized and integrated within the group and the individual as a consequence of simple accumulation. Procedure “a,” appropriate in situation one, and procedure “b,” appropriate in situation two, may clash in mutual violent opposition in situation three. Under such circumstances intrapsychic or interpersonal conflict necessarily emerges. When such antagonism arises, moral revaluation becomes necessary. As a consequence of such revaluation, behavioral options are brutally rank-ordered, or, less frequently, entire moral systems are devastated, reorganized and replaced. This organization and reorganization occurs as a consequence of “war,” in its concrete, abstract, intrapsychic, and interpersonal variants. In the most basic case, an individual is rendered subject to an intolerable conflict, as a consequence of the perceived (affective) incompatibility of two or more apprehended outcomes of a given behavioral procedure. In the purely intrapsychic sphere, such conflict often emerges when attainment of what is desired presently necessarily interferes with attainment of what is desired (or avoidance of what is feared) in the future. Permanent satisfactory resolution of such conflict (between temptation and “moral purity,” for example) requires the construction of an abstract moral system, powerful enough to allow what an occurrence signifies for the future to govern reaction to what it signifies now. Even that construction, however, is necessarily incomplete when considered only as an “intrapsychic” phenomena. The individual, once capable of coherently integrating competing motivational demands in the private sphere, nonetheless remains destined for conflict with the other, in the course of the inevitable transformations of personal experience. This means that the person who has come to terms with him- or herself—at least in principle—is still subject to the affective dysregulation inevitably produced by interpersonal interaction. It is also the case that such subjugation is actually indicative of insufficient “intrapsychic” organization, as many basic “needs” can only be satisfied through the cooperation of others."

He wraps his writing up in common known truths, such as "tidy your room", as you said, and his books are essentially self-help books. But between all of these known truths, he writes things that sound really profound and intellectual, yet they don't make any sense, nor can they be proven in any way. This the sort of writing that is written to make the reader feel stupid or that they can't understand it because it is profound. Because of this, they believe that Peterson surely must be right, great and highly intelligent, yet, he doesn't actually say anything of any worth or intellectual value, and he doesn't say anything that can be proven or disproven.

Furthermore, because his ideas can't be disproven or proven this is why he appears to "win" debates. Because of the seeming profundity of his ideas and writing, when he debates and his opponent challenges his views, he tells them that isn't what he meant or that they are interpreting it incorrectly, as happened when he was interviewed by Cathy Newman of Channel 4. In this sense, he is very similar to the sort of religious fundamentalist Dawkins or Hitchens would debate, in that their ideas couldn't be proven or disproven.

He isn't the intellectual people make him out to be, and he certainly isn't a new Messiah.

People who read only left wing loony polemics like Owen Jones wouldn't make sense of the above , that
I agree with.
The CIA shot JFK because he was a closet Marxist, now that makes sense. Shot him from the little
grassy knoll next to the sidewalk over in Dallas. Thats the kind of stuff you all love to read

 

[StalinsPipe]

I'd agree that the above which you have posted is a nonsensical word salad, however when it comes to presenting his ideas in lectures or even TV interviews I've always found Peterson to be fairly straightforward and logical. I think even someone with a basic intellect can grasp the concepts he puts forward, the Cathy Newman interview being a perfect example. And if we are going to say who 'won' and 'lost' that debate there really isn't a contest, he crushed her and didn't even seem to have to get out of second gear to do it.

People who read only left wing loony polemics like Owen Jones wouldn't make sense of the above , that
I agree with.
The CIA shot JFK because he was a closet Marxist, now that makes sense. Shot him from the little
grassy knoll next to the sidewalk over in Dallas. Thats the kind of stuff you all love to read

U ok m8?

What's it like being constantly triggered? Must be exhausting.

 

[vegan.cro spirit# 568]

U ok m8?

What's it like being constantly triggered? Must be exhausting.

My advice would be to cut down the leftie gibberish to a couple of paragraphs max

 

[vegan.cro spirit# 568]

U ok m8?

What's it like being constantly triggered? Must be exhausting.

My advice would be to cut down the leftie gibberish to a couple of paragraphs max.

 

[Anonymous]

I welcome the race war on the streets of Great Britain. Always knew it would kick off there and the scenes are looking promising. So glad I have stocked up on firearms and grenades for the past 10 years and is a member of a local militia. Our survival bunker with food to last for 10 years is the envy of the world.

 

[Psycholologist]

I thought this thread was about #Kanye