Search the Community

So I just watched the full video of the audio of the interrogation of Lindsay Shepherd. Wow. I am blown away by what I heard. I knew that leftists believed their bullshit, but now I hear them saying that their worldview is that people aren't left enough! It's a disturbing listen, so those who look up this video (provided by 1791L youtube channel), be forewarned, it is both dull and horrifying all at once. For those who don't know, a graduate student Teacher's Assistant, Lindsay Sheperd, played a few minutes of a youtube video of a Jordan Peterson discussion in a classroom setting. Some students complained, and she was disciplined for her actions. As a result of the ugly process she was put through, she's grown totally disillusioned with academia and is going to leave the university setting. This video is just the audio of the meeting in which the administration grills Ms. Shepherd for playing Jordan Peterson, and it was just the beginning of the trials and tribulations for Shepherd... all because some students' feels got hurt. As someone who lived through something similar, this disturbed me greatly. Listen at your own peril. Thoughts?

Hi everyone I'm not too familiar with modern psychology theories, especially in regards to mating, I've listen to a bit of JP talks, and there is a question I've been wondering about for some time now... Is the modern dating/marriage/mating scene in the west, trending towards becoming more like the mating behaviors of domesticated animals / cattle? I'm not a farmer, and know very little about how breeding process actually works, but correct me if I'm wrong: the male to female ratio among domesticated bovine is something like 1 to 20 or even 1 to 50. For example, a dairy farmer would keep one bull (male) to breed with 30 of his cows (female). The rest of his male bovine are discarded and turned to beef or veal in a few weeks or in a year. Or their skin would be used for leather. In the past they had use for them, as they could be used as draft animals, pulling machinery, but today with large machinery and tractors they're not needed for work. Some of them would be castrated. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Here's a site recommending the 1 to 20 ratio https://u.osu.edu/beef/1999/03/10/mating-capacity-of-bulls-bull-to-cow-ratio/ Similar ratio for rooster (male) to hen (female) which is 1 to ~12, correct? Anyways, wondering if the modern mating scene is very similar: 1 man getting mating opportunities with 20-50 women and this man would be what JP would call - alpha and the other male humans are "discarded" - they are called beta Has there been any books on this phenomena- comparing it to domesticated farm animals? If this phenomena is really true today, I guess the old adage is correct: "you are what you eat" haha

Has anyone seen the debate that happened recently? What do you think of it? It makes me kinda sad that Michael Dyson gets applause. If you havent here is a link to it

My life reads like a Shakespearean tragedy, no I'm not being melodramatic. Despite years of therapy, inner work, etc I'm continually being bamboozled, and trolled by people who negatively affect my real life. I've heard Jordan Peterson talk about there are people who after a certain age they're just screwed, it's just over for them. I'm 43, I'm a felon because I fell for a real estate scam and even though I brought proof to the courts they still saw fit to punish me alone, and to even award the conman a restraining order against me after he violently assaulted me from behind. The D.A in los angeles refused to press charges against my attacker, but are considering pressing charges against me for "slandering" the conman. I'm jobless, living in an RV on my parents property in the middle of nowhere, they're not supportive of me getting back on my feet. At this point I feel like I'm some fucking 90 year old waiting to die, not like some middle age man trying to find a way to salvage what life I have left. Every solution I bring to people so that i can help myself is shot down. I am kept from being independent, I'm not allowed to borrow a car for any reason. I've tried making money online, but have never been able to make money online due to my destroyed reputation, I am marketed online by my haters as a schizophrenic, an alcoholic, a racist, sexist, violent felon, even a potential child molester and school shooter. If this shit sounds unreal , join the club. At this point I really can't see any solutions, I hate myself for what I've allowed myself to become, I really honestly feel like this isn't reality, it sure as hell doesn't feel real, and I really do kinda want to just go to sleep and not wake up rather than continue suffering needlessly for who knows how much longer. And yes, for the past year I've been pretty much alone in my RV, the closest people being my family who I really on't care much for to begin with.

I know that there is no context to my questions, I just want to hear your thoughts on these questions at face value. Question 1. If you listen to Jordan Peterson or know the Bible, you know about Cain vs Abel story. My fundamental question is, what system do you have in place to not become Cain? (Cain = becoming angry/bitter at God/being) Question 2. Carl Jung's concept of The Shadow is very interesting to me. How would one differentiate The Shadow versus just rage/anger. Now Jordan Peterson once said that you have to respect the shadow, what are the practical ways to do that?

What is happening on college campuses???? I just finished watching the speech Dr. Peterson gave at Queens university. Was expecting the typical brilliance and incredible insight one would expect from Jordan...until about ten minutes in when the 'protesters' broke in and interrupted the event. If you haven't seen this take the time to watch it. Over an hour of these people banging on windows and blowing air horns and chanting like possessed monkeys. They actually broke several of the beautiful stained-glass windows. Is this sort of thing common at many universities? Who here is currently a student? Is speech going to continue to be effective to combat this hatred going forward? Please share your thought on this.

Two great vids! Jordan Peterson and Sargon of Akkad at their best! The first is JP talking to a feminist reporter in Britain. The second is Sargon's commentary on it. Definitely worth seeing. I love the part about the similarities between the philosophies of the trans activists and Chairman Mao. "The philosophy that is guiding their utterances is the same philosophy". Beautiful.

I've included sections for whatever takes your fancy. Sorry it's long, but it's cool. With the rising popularity of Jordan Peterson and his attempt to translate the Bible outside of metaphor and into the realm of psychology and philosophy and whatnot, I thought I'd show you a bit of what I know. Should be a good read. I'll unpack just TWO WORDS for you: WHY DOES THE BIBLE COMMAND US TO 'FEAR GOD'? Because God represents truth. Period. Whether you believe in God or not, look at it that way. If God is what's true, he's what's real (truth irrespective of our limited understanding). That doesn't mean he's everything good and bad or nice or frightening. It only means that he's everything that is. Your interpretation of what is doesn't matter. He's only everything that has happened to you and will happen to you. There isn't any moral content there though, since it's not a matter of what ought to happen or shouldn't happen. It's what did and what does. So do you fear the truth? Yes, you do. Why? Because you're inherently self-righteous. There is some belief you have that creates a foundation for yourself that isn't true. In fact, all beliefs are like that. Everything you believe about yourself is a lie in some fashion. You don't quite understand what you are or who you are. You have labels for things, but delve into your understanding of those labels and you'll find some gap in your understanding. So you fear God in that he threatens to reveal the untruth, the lies you have about yourself or the biases you have or whatever. But at the same time, the truth is not a malevolent threat. It merely exists. It's just an 'is' and you're afraid of it. So then, if the truth isn't malevolent, how is it benevolent? Because it's knowing the truth that best assists you in literally everything. No matter how awful reality has become, it's understanding that reality that best equips you for it. So yeah, what's real can be awful and devastating and all sorts of bad, but it's only understanding it that will help you overcome it. Not knowing why it's happening will lead to ruin. Deceiving yourself into believing it's something other than it is will lead to ruin. So indeed, you have a fearful relationship to the truth. But you also have an adoring one, a loving one, a thankful one, an honorable one and a respectful one. Even regarding the worst thing that happens to you, it's only the truth that will allow you to overcome it. The truth of the origin of your depression. The truth of of WMDs in Iraq. The truth of which way to escape a burning building. It. Does. Not. Matter. The truth is always honest with us by definition. It's our relationship to truth that creates all these different feelings towards it. The reason 'fear' was chosen as the ultimate phrasing for this relationship is because it allows for all the others, but also puts us in our place with regard to truth. We have to submit to it. We're nothing in comparison to it. We owe it our survival. We owe it everything. It's not terrifying in the sense that it will harm us. It's terrifying in the scope of it's power. It's the sort of terror or awe that's inspired by a power beyond comprehension. And yes, we naturally fear that. Something beyond comprehension MEANS we can't ever understand it and thus the truth CANNOT prevail us - totally. So the truth - the ULTIMATE TRUTH i.e. God, is inherently terrifying to us. But he's no threat. Like the universe or reality itself, contemplated in all it's majesty - if we could, would drive us insane. Yet, comprehending it is exactly what we must do to survive. The reason Peterson talks of self-knowledge and death as the same thing, is because he's talking about shedding the ego such that we're able to better understand reality without bias. Christians phrase this as 'receiving God'. So as I see it, it's 'receiving truth'. Of course, there is no better way to receive the truth then when you eliminate your biases, your self-righteousness. But since the self is based on these biases, you have to 'die' in order to better receive truth. You have to give up the old biases, the old self-righteousness, and be REBORN as someone more humble. Someone less self-righteous and so more willing to understand truth. Hence the DEATH AND REBIRTH of Jesus as man's salvation. This is impossible to do since we've all some self-righteousness by design. Descartes proved that. (Cogito ergo sum). So instead, this 'new life' is one of introspection and vigilance against the self - the ego. So now whenever you're keen to believe something or impose something as true, essentially to assume or presume something, you stop yourself. Yes, you're always going to have the tendency to assume things and you're always going to have old assumptions you didn't purge. But so long as you remain vigilant you can take on less new assumptions and remove more old assumptions and so move closer to truth. And that ladies and gentlemen, is the EXACT same relationship we have toward truth when engaging the scientific method. We're agnostic about everything 'real' and the entire exercise is trying to prove ourselves wrong. It's trying to prove where we've got the model wrong - which is true by definition, rather than trying to prove ourselves right. The current model is always wrong. It's not 'incomplete' until you find where it was wrong. Where Newtonian Physics didn't work anymore or whatever. Then you hopefully fill in that gap (General Relativity in this case), and then you proceed to find where relativity is wrong and then determine the model to be incomplete once more. See, any belief you have is wrong. It's incomplete - always. You have to challenge that belief to discern so in the first place, and then take on a more true perspective should you discern how it was WRONG. Then you do it again and again. It's the death and rebirth cycle of Jesus. Over and over and yes, like the bible says, it moves you closer to God i.e. truth. And people still don't understand why science erupted from Christian Europe. Good Lord. And remember, that's TWO WORDS. HOW TO READ THE BIBLE AS AN ATHEIST: If you want to do this yourself: God is reality. Jesus is self (self-righteousness i.e. YOUR truth). Holy Spirit is the process of attribution (philosophical individuation). This probably doesn't make sense so: God is Conclusion. (Objective) - Rock Jesus is Hypothesis. (Subjective) - Paper Holy Spirit is Experimentation. (Predictive) - Scissors You can actually read the bible under this pretense. Read it as though the Holy Trinity represents the steps in the scientific method or the 3 states of knowledge you may possess. No matter what you pick, their relationship takes on a 'rock-paper-scissors' dynamic. Rock is what's real. Paper is what's believed about what's real. Scissors is the means of reconciling that belief with reality. Maybe even 'Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis', if you'd like. So long as the relationships the triad have to each other are the same, it's actually the same thing you're thinking about and referencing: the operation of thought itself. Blows your mind. 'Rock' is immutable and permanent (truth), but we're ignorant of it. (God, The Objective) 'Paper' is mutable and constantly being replaced (belief), but it is believed due to lack of alternatives. (Jesus, The Subjective) 'Scissors' is always a methodology (action), but it determines more of 'Rock' and so alters 'Paper'. (Holy Spirit, The Predictive) Finally, the whole damn thing follows the model of 'cause-effect-outcome' or 'cause-effect-purpose'. The reason outcome and purpose are necessary to this is that the 'outcome' or 'purpose' is a change in the state of reality itself. An effect doesn't exist merely on it's own but is a change in reality itself since it changes the entire universe. We don't like to think this way, but it does. This effect changes the state of the universe such that a repetition of that effect or indeed the cause of it, will actually be ever so slightly different. Think gravity, quantum threads, that sort of stuff. This theory was always embedded in our understanding of cause and effect since the 'bounds' of any subsystem of cause and effect (a thing) aren't real. As such, they alter the substrate in which such effects may occur again. So the 'outcome' of any cause and effect system alters the next iteration of 'cause' (Know more of God). In understanding the nature of that alteration, it brings with it a better understanding of the universe as you know it (Rebirth of Jesus). So you know more of the next cause and more of the prior one, since you know more of how the universe reacts to them. This is where everything becomes wonderfully and necessarily teleological as a matter of mind, though not necessarily of reality. Where attributions of purpose become necessary to any means of understanding and as a matter more of utility than truth. It's what allows for the progressive, growing nature of understanding (Holy Spirit leading to God). Really neat. GOD IS THE ULTIMATE MEME And yeah, such that each of these different things have been created in the search for truth or to catalogue it, that they've managed to assist humanity in survival i.e. interacting with reality in knowledge of what 'works', they've proven their utility and, dare I say, truth. But it's the truth in their relationship that matters. God ain't real. Nor Jesus or the Holy Spirit or, depending on who you talk to, objective reality and all that. But this single triad and the relationship it has within itself crops up everywhere that people have tried to determine what was true....and managed to find SUCCESS in it. Basically, since reality didn't kill them and so their ideas with them, there was truth-content in what they believed. They operated FUNCTIONALLY with reality. They PREDICTED truth. Understand of course that 'God' was never originally written this way. Rather, we was edited into existence. What worked was kept. What didn't was scrapped. Whichever Christian survived, physically and socially, passed on his 'wisdom of God'. Those that didn't perished and so didn't pass their untruth on. So what the Christian represents is a modern-day 'social-species' with all prior iterations representing a social FOSSIL RECORD. Get it? Memes evolve with genes according to reality and according to their purpose: survival. Hence the bible, by virtue of it's longevity, is packed full of truth regard the nature of physical reality but more importantly: social and psychological reality. Though it's all masked in metaphor - nearly a different language. Anyway, this is how you read the bible as an atheist in an effort to become a cultural Christian. TRANSLATING THE BIBLE INTO A RATIONAL LANGUAGE I haven't decoded it, but I do know how to a good degree. I just need hands. I've done Genesis up to Adam's exile. Figure at this point I should start showing people. Peterson is being quite helpful, but the lens of a personality psychologist, while creating a far clearer image, is narrow in its scope. So he's very right about very little, which he admits to. Particularity is never a bad thing, but it's like understanding quantum physics without knowing anything about antibiotics - as a species. You can focus into an ever-greater understanding of just one thing, but in that way it becomes less and less integral to the whole. Better to use your knowledge of atomic structure to examine living tissue and so find and attack the bacteria we're so weak to. Something very little but also very true has great potential in other matters, but you have to know how to apply it there. So philosophy, in particular philosophical individuation (the nature of attribution and distinction) and ontology, could yield it. Stef could do it - I think. Imagine the prestige, to indulge in self for a moment. It wouldn't be a selfish pursuit either. You'd be able to link purpose with Christians of all sorts and unite libertarians across the religious spectrum. Even better, you'd also provide an ultimate arbiter, an ultimate standard that the more rebellious libertarians would be forced to yield to as a matter of logic and principle. You know, 'Unite the Right'. I'm not speaking crap either. This is how to do it. You reveal to these different 'sects' the nature of their belief and with that the congruity between them that they can't see. Their division is an illusion. It's been a matter of mind and not action/purpose for generations. They are divided only in motivation/intention. They will yield the same outcome together, but differ in their interpretation of it. So they infight based on false pretenses. But if you reveal to them that both of their interpretations are a skewed vision of the same thing, you can generate cooperation. Neither is likely to forsake their own interpretation, but they will come to see their interpretation in their 'rivals'. As it stands, I've found the congruity between Christians, atheists, scientists, libertarians, and MGTOW with a few hints unexplored in MRAs, 'centrists', classical liberals, ethno-nationalists, and I think a few others. It's always there, this triad - at least on the 'Right' or rather the 'Not-Insane' wing of politics. So anything but the Far-Left and hey! Wouldn't you know it? We're united on that front. Well gee-whiz. It's like we might just be standing for the same thing and not just AGAINST the same thing. I'm excitedly rambling. I do that. Oh yeah, I'd love to talk to Stef about this but he monologues about his own position (admit it, but it's good for the show) and this would most certainly be a teacher-student exchange that I'm not sure either of us wants to enter into. It would interrupt his flow and is, I think, something difficult to explain over Skype. Lucky for me, I'm local. I could actually meet in person too. Would love to. Imagine that? It would be nice if you guys read this and critiqued it. Though truly, take the triad to heart and start reading the bible or listening to Jordan Peterson's work on Genesis. Watch it sync up with Peterson. It would be uncanny were it not for the nature of memes I just talked about. Though again, tip of the iceberg. So such that anyone cares well, spread this around I guess. Hope it helps, if you're interested in this sort of thing.

Jordan Peterson Richard Spencer Julian Assange Camille Paglia Martin Shkreli Ann Coulter (again) Larry Elder Sam H. Who do you wish Stefan would interview?

I've started watching this guy and I find his talks on evil, order and chaos and hierarchy fascinating. In this talk, particularly starting at about 40m, he explores the relationship between the personality trait of "orderliness" and authoritarianism. If anyone else has read or watched him in depth and has any formed any views on his approach I would be most grateful to have some comments.