Jordan Peterson Dismantled ¦ Jordan Peterson Exposed [Resurrection Europa Mirror]

Video Transcript:

I don't think that the Caucasians should revert to being white. I think that's a bad idea. It's a dangerous idea. What the hell? Pride. What's that? That's not the right response. I think I understand what's going on with the Keck boys and with Peppie, a hell of a lot better than the people who are casual observers of it because I've actually studied it. Starting to produce an extraordinarily dangerous counter position. It's the alt-right that's part of it. It's the Keckistannis, it's this peppy thing. I mean, when I first saw the peppy frog, I really recoil from it. What, more recently, what has gone wrong with the right? Well, where? It's threatening to go to foreign-identitarian Europe. That's for sure. With the people in Europe who are turning to a regressive nationalism as an alternative to the current state of chaos. Many people write me from the right or from the fringes of the radical right, saying precisely that listening to my lecture stopped them from going all the way. Just what exactly is Jordan Peterson's endgame? It's been just over two years now since he first appeared on the scene. I also said I wouldn't mouth the words of the ideologically possessed and that was with regards to gender-neutral pronouns. At first, everyone thought he was just a brave university professor who had had enough of the cultural Marxist garbage that has taken over our society. That he'd snapped when the Canadian government announced it was going to legally mandate calling people Zim Zer and Z-Self. Peterson came out of the gate with some vicious rebukes of the political left. And even called them what they are. Cultural Marxists. But it didn't take long for Peterson to begin showing his true colors. Nearly at the same time he was thrust into the spotlight for defying the social justice clique at the University of Toronto. Peterson began positioning himself to evangelize a very specific demographic. Young white males. What followed after fall of 2016 was a meteoric rise to fame at the hands of the mainstream media, which they made every effort to disguise as being organic. Soon thereafter, his mission became plain to see. Jordan Peterson's primary goal is to neutralize the political right. There are a large number of people who believe that Peterson is a force for good because he has criticized left-wing politics and cultural Marxism. However, what was his motivation for doing so? What was the straw that broke the camel's back and caused Peterson to go public with his objections to left-wing politics? Did Jordan Peterson choose to sound the alarm at any point during his decades-long career as he witnessed the cultural Marxist infiltration of academia transform hundreds of thousands of students into useful idiots? No, he did not. Did Jordan Peterson choose to alert the world to the danger of the cultural Marxist subversion of the world's governments as he worked at the United Nations? Helping them write a Marxist document that outlined their plans for creating equality of outcome inside of and between every country on Earth? No, he didn't. On the surface, it might seem like his primary concern was the encroachment on the liberties of freedom of speech. With his activism debut consisting of a YouTube video he published in the fall of 2016, where he expressed his refusal to speak that preferred pronouns of transsexuals, and his objection to Canadian federal legislation mandating speech of that nature. However, very shortly after doing so, Jordan Peterson gave an interview with the Canadian state-run media broadcaster at the CBC in which he stated, I can tell you one thing that I'm very terrified of, and you can think about this. I think that the continual, careless pushing of people by left-wing radicals is dangerously waking up the right wing. So you can consider this a prophecy from me if you want. Inside the collective is a beast, and the beast uses its fists. If you wake up the beast, then violence emerges. I'm afraid that this continual pushing by radical left-wingers is going to wake up the beast. Peterson expressed his terror at the realization that he had had, that the takeover of Western academia, the media, and governments by cultural Marxists was catalyzing a response by the political right. Part of the reason that I landed in the political hot water that I landed in last year was because I was increasingly aware that this process of polarization was going to take place, and that the continual, in my estimation, anyways, the continual clawing of new ground underneath the radical leftist rubric, especially in the universities, is starting to produce an extraordinarily dangerous counter-position. His analysis was that the policies and aggressive dog might be turned out by the political left were being done in a careless manner that was leading to what he believed would culminate in the political left being neutralized by the right-wing. This is the real reason why Peterson decided he needed to step onto the public stage, not because he wants to dismantle cultural Marxism, but because he realized that the political left's current strategy for achieving their goals is in the process of backfiring spectacularly. What's going on on the left is a bit of a new twist. What you have is a coalition of different tribal identities that aren't large enough to marshal a force on their own, and so they're united, and together they are a formidable force. But what's going to happen is that's an unstable entity. At the point that that force gains power, it's going to come apart as internal dynamics rip it up. It's not capable of restraining the version that recurs on the right, the version that does manifest as white nationalism. That version is stable because it does represent an actual population that has an evolutionary basis for remaining cohesive. Jordan Peterson spent the last two decades of his career watching academia become infested to the gills with Marxist intellectuals, watching as hundreds of thousands of students were radicalized by their propaganda. Watching as their rhetoric and demands became more and more extreme, while he sat back idly and did nothing. Remember also that Peterson proudly worked at the United Nations from 2009 until 2012 for George Soros' protégé Jim Balsley, where he helped draft a cultural Marxist document that outlined how the Western world's wealth must be redistributed to the Third World, and how the West must also accept and subsidize illegal immigration from the Third World. At no point in Peterson's career, including while working at the United Nations, did he feel the need to sound the alarm about the cultural Marxist takeover of Western institutions. What spurred Peterson to action was not only his realization that the methodology by which the political left was implementing its revolution was triggering an organic reaction, but that that reaction was fully capable of and likely to succeed in implementing a final solution to the West's revolution. And your point, Brett, that the radical right actually is more powerful once they get organized is a really good one because there's no fractionation. It's more stable. You bet, and they have all the guns. That's another thing to think about. And so Jordan Peterson decided to attempt to strangle the fledgling right wing in its cradle. He proceeded to deploy a sophisticated attack disguised cunningly as a centrist rebuke of political extremes that in reality was a message of reformation to the left, and what he intended to be a killing blow to the right. Strategy. Accused whites of playing Marxist identity politics. One of Peterson's most substantial achievements has been the instantiation in the minds of his followers, the belief that Europeans working together to resist their collective dispossession and extermination is no different than Marxist identity politics. Any concerted effort made by whites as a group to resist dispossession by progressive government policies or by mass immigration is condemned by Peterson as being a manifestation of identity politics. The French intellectuals had to admit that communism was a bad deal by the end of the 1960s. And what happened was that they played a sleight of hand game in some sense and rebranded themselves under the postmodern guys. And that's where identity politics came from. According to Peterson, identity politics are when a group identifies itself as being oppressed by another group and demands that the group that is oppressing them give up their wealth and power for redistribution amongst the oppressed group. So they started to play a sleight of hand and instead of pitting the proletariat, the working class against the bourgeoisie, they started to pit the oppressor, the oppressed against the oppressor. And that opened up the avenue to identifying any number of groups as oppressed and oppressor and to continue the same narrative under a different name. Some may believe that when Peterson claims whites are playing identity politics, he is in fact describing any form of politics that aims to advance the interests of European people as a group. However, in reality, Peterson has in fact tried to construct a narrative in which whites are literally trying to define an oppressed oppressor dichotomy to pursue Marxist identity politics. In the spring of 2018, Peterson published a short article on his blog entitled On the So-called Jewish Question. In that article, he wrote, Why do the reactionary conspiracy theorists even bother? This is a straightforward matter. If you're misguided enough to play identity politics, whether on the left or the right, you require a victim in the right wing case, European culture or some variant, and a perpetrator, Jews. Otherwise, you can't play the game. So whenever Peterson dismisses and condemns Europeans as playing toxic identity politics for working together to put an end to mass immigration that is rendering them a minority in their own countries, or for working together to put an end to the Marxist subversion of their nations that is hell-bent and incrementally dispossessing them, he is in fact making the claim that those Europeans want nothing more than to play the victim and demand redistribution of power from Jews to themselves. It is with this slight of hand that Peterson falsely equates whites wanting to protect the demographic destiny of their own countries with totalitarianism, evil, and danger. Peterson's fallacy here is plainly revealed when one considers the fact that both the USA and Canada, both before World War II, were classical liberal democracies that shed blood to defeat totalitarian regimes, and both countries strictly enforced the demographic character of their countries with immigration laws that nearly exclusively permitted European immigration only. Furthermore, when Peterson differentiates between men and women, it is no different than someone differentiating between races. It is a form of identity politics that is based on objective biological reality, rather than any kind of ideology, and is thus the antithesis of Marxist class warfare identity politics. Having established that whites protecting their nations and the future of their children from certain destruction is automatically tantamount to the instantiation of some flavor of totalitarian regime, Peterson's next objective was to undermine the psychological foundations of European identity itself. Strategium, psychopathologize, and deconstruct white identity. Peterson frequently uses his position of authority as a psychologist to psychopathologize white identity. More than once, he has referred to whites who desire to organize together to protect their group interests as pathological. At other times, he likes to chastise whites for committing the sin of racial pride, dimming it as well to be a pathology. During a talk, Peterson was confronted with a quote from Canadian historical sociologist and professor at the University of New Brunswick, Ricardo Duchéne. In the quote, Duchéne argued that for the underlying spirit of individualism to be preserved in the West, European people themselves must be preserved, arguing that individualism was a trait that seemed to be inherent to European peoples. Concluding that Europeans must therefore take pride in their ethnic identity and heritage as a means of self-preservation, and therefore as a means of preserving the spirit of individualism itself. Rather than addressing the actual premises and conclusion of Duchéne's argument, Peterson went on a tirade about how ethnic pride is sinful and unacceptable, casting scorn upon Duchéne and other whites who dare to take pride in their heritage and culture. That's nothing to be proud of. That's something to tremble before. To take on as an ethical burden, and not to wave a flag for how wonderful you are that you happen to have the same skin color as some of the people who thought that up. It's not the right response. Peterson's chastisement of Europeans who take pride in their heritage and culture is based on the absurd assumption that any who do so are trying to literally take personal credit for the achievements of their ancestors. It's like I don't feel pride about that. I feel like I have something to live up to. That's not the same thing, man. And so these right-wingers in this, it's like look what we've done. It's like no, it's not you that did that. That's something, man. You're going to have your act together before you would dare to say, well that was me. It's like, yeah sure, sure it was you. Yeah, right. No. The reality, of course, is that pride in one's heritage, culture, and civilization is not in fact heubristic pride, but one of pride of ownership, an emotion that engenders the very deep sense of responsibility and appreciation that is necessary to preserve those things. The very feelings that Peterson claims should be felt in place of pride. At some point Peterson declared that the goal of what he calls the radical right, his disparaging term for European people who wish to cooperate with one another to protect their nations from certain destruction, is to cultivate unearned identity and the glories of the past. What Peterson is doing here is in fact paving the way for the most extreme forms of egalitarianism. Since one cannot control their DNA or their heritage, nor can one control their environment. The person one is cannot be earned. This is the same argument that is used by those who argue for equality of outcome. For example, they will argue that since intelligence is either largely determined by genetics or the environment, it is an advantage that is not earned. And therefore measures must be put in place to mitigate that unfair unearned advantage. What Peterson is actually saying is that whites have no right to their own identity based on their heritage since they did not work to earn who their parents or ancestors were. You're using your unearned... Privilege. Peterson wanted to say unearned privilege, referring of course to white privilege, but realized his error and began racking his brain for a synonym. The unearned gift that's been granted to you as a source of personal pride in your accomplishments, duty, or skin. It's like no, not good, not a good argument. Just as the cultural Marxists do, Peterson likes to deconstruct the white race down to nothing more than the level of melanin in one skin. The other thing about the whole angry young white men thing is that my angry young white men followers are a hell of a lot less angry and a hell of a lot less white than they would have been if they wouldn't have been following me. One of the things, you know, I've had many, many letters from young men who've also said that they had been attracted to the more dogmatic end of the right, more dogmatic right wing end of the political spectrum and that listening to my videos has been exactly what's kept them more or less in the middle. Deconstructing whiteness as the cultural Marxists call it is something that Peterson loves to do at every opportunity. My concern is doing away with whiteness. If you abolish slavery, you abolish slaveholders. In the same way, if you abolish racial oppression, you do away with whiteness. Whiteness is an identity that arises entirely out of oppression. Whiteness is not a culture, it's not a religion, it's not a language, it's simply an oppressive social category. In a tweet to evolutionary psychologist Kevin McDonald in late 2017, Peterson posed the classic cultural Marxist question, how do you define whiten? Who's whiteness exactly? Like how do you draw these distinctions? When you're going so far as to make the absurd declaration, the biological organisms do not have an interest in the propagation of their DNA into the future. While some may try to argue that Peterson's primary concern is with trying to prevent society from being destabilized by what he calls tribalism or identity politics. When it comes to Europeans, Peterson's motives go far beyond simply warning about the dangers of group identity. He has declared that white identity itself is a mental illness, and not only that, but that the white race itself is a fiction, just as the cultural Marxists do, the people who he claims to oppose. The very hint of a white individual taking pride in their heritage causes Peterson to lapse into a venomous tirade of shaming and castigation. All of this is fueled by his profound fear that if whites unite in solidarity to protect themselves and the future of their children, it will somehow lead to the total destruction of Western civilization. I think it's genocidal in its ultimate expression. I think it will bring down our civilization if we pursue it. Strategium. Combine self-help advice, political ideology and religion. Clean up your room. Peterson has roving a complex psychological mind trap in the form of a political ideology disguised as a self-help regimen wrapped in religious metaphor. Ideologies are fragmented religions. Essentially they use the same symbolic understructure, but they only tell part of the story. Despite Peterson's assertion that ideology itself is the root of all evil, and that ideology must therefore be rejected in favor of the righteous path of the individual, he is ironically by doing so, pushing his own ideology that he himself calls radical individualism. Dr. Walton, what was the adverse effect of the Frankfurt School on the world? Well, I would say if we looked at our own country into a lesser degree, perhaps Western Europe, we live in an era today when patriotism, defense of our own nationality, independence, sovereignty or all under attack, to paint middle class morality as repressive, to paint authority within the family outside the family as repressive, to promote personal liberation or what we might call radical individualism. I don't see any alternative than the than the radical individualism that's predicated on these deep stories that characterize as the West. It's the right answer. In short, to fument the rebellion of youth against traditional morality and authority structures in their society, something we can see has diffused through our society today. This political ideology of his is inextricably enmeshed with his self-help advice whereby he admonishes people to clean their rooms and set their life in order. According to Peterson, those who do not adhere to his political ideology of radical individualism fail to do so due to suffering from a pathological personality defective of some kind, stumbling from a refusal to clean their rooms and bear the cross of individual responsibility. The average Peterson fan is totally incapable of separating the in itself benign self-help advice from Peterson's political ideology. The result is that those who follow his ideology end up in a perpetual state of masturbatory self-improvement, perceiving those who cooperate together in groups based on some set of shared, normative values as being psychologically damaged and morally inferior. They end up perceiving any criticism of Peterson's politics as a personal attack on their efforts to improve themselves and as an attack on the man whom they see is having been instrumental to their self-improvement or salvation. All of this closely matches the patterns of a cult, with Peterson's followers acting based on strong emotions rather than logic to staunchly defend their charismatic cult leader and his ideology of radical individualism. Look at the audience. It's mostly European men, a few women, very few people from minority backgrounds who are so-called minorities. They are very few Asian, very few Chinese, but actually they didn't change any Japanese background. Maybe Apple is still young, no Arabs, no blacks. So what have they tell you? They tell you that those people feel that something is not right. Those people feel that something is missing. Their needs are not meant to be popular. And everybody else is needs on that because they are not here, or they don't care. In retrospect, it is plainly evident that Peterson made an effort to market himself and his cult to young white males from the very beginning. In the fall of 2016, Peterson attempted to subvert the mimetic culture by intentionally associating himself with Pepe the Frog, claiming that spiritual synchronicity had crowned him the spokesfrog. So when I saw the video that you put up, was it two days ago now? I couldn't believe it. The next morning I got an email from my brother who also studies symbolism and is a very smart person and he said, does Jordan know he is incarnating Pepe right now? Yeah, well the funny thing is, you know, I knew about Pepe, but it was, I had nothing like that on my mind when I made the video. It never even entered my mind that that was an association. As spokesfrog, I am announcing that there is something polluted about the water in which we are all swimming. Note how he was careful to position the orange circle on the painting behind him around his head as if it were a divine aura or halo. A symbolism that he no doubt intended to convey his status as the divinely appointed spokesfrog prophet of the young white males he refers to as the lost kekboys. So you are a prof, profit? Well, you know, we are in a new world in many ways because of the reach of social media. And so I have this immense multimedia platform. The reality is that Jordan Peterson's self-help advice in the form of clean your room is nothing more than a delivery vector for his insidious anti-white political ideology, an ideology that he refuses to publicly defend. Strategy, exclude the radical right from debate. Many are aware of Peterson's hypocritical decision to uninvite Canadian journalist Faith Goldie from a free speech event at the Canada Christian College in November of 2017, with his stated reason being that Faith had chosen to associate with someone on the political right whose opinions he disagreed with. I understand that Faith Goldie was removed from the original August panel because of her podcast with the controversial Daily Stormer after Charlottesville. This seems like a performative contradiction to her who Faith, because of one interview, well claiming to believe in freedom of speech. She was associating with people whose views she should have questioned. It was her journalistic responsibility to question her. And as a consequence of that, she became too hot a property for us. What is less known, however, is that Jordan Peterson has a personal rule of intentionally excluding people from public debate based on their opinions and points of view. We know how to put a box around the extremists on the right. Basically we say, oh you're making claims of ethnic or racial superiority. You're not part of the conversation anymore. I mean I think the fundamental criteria for drawing boundaries around the rights are claims of racial or ethnic superiority. That seems to me to be the place where conservatism degenerates into something approximating ethno nationalist fascism. It's something like that. According to Peterson, anyone who thinks there is a biological difference between the different genetic groups of human beings must be isolated and excluded from all public debate of any kind. This is beyond hypocritical, given that Peterson admitted himself on Stefan Mollinou show that there exists large and permanent discrepancies in average IQ between the different racial groups. So IQ is a particularly ugly aspect of science because the IQ, the IQ literature reveals that which no one would want to be the case, which is that there are profound and virtually irremeable differences in people's cognitive performance. And that those differences have a very solid biological and heritable basis. No one wants to hear that. They don't want to hear that it's biological. They don't want to hear that it's heritable. They don't want to hear it's permanent. They don't want to hear that it's irremeable and that it actually has a practical consequence and no wonder they don't want to hear it. And even worse, they don't want to hear that it differs between genders and ethnicities. That is to me one of the most painful things that I've ever learned in my life is this kind of information. It is one of the great heart breaks when it comes to the dream of pure egalitarianism and that is I think even harder. It's an even harder pill for people to swallow. Not only that, but Peterson wrote an entire essay about the genetic superiority of Ashkenazi Jews relating to their allegedly having an average IQ one standard deviation above that of Europeans stating that Jewish people are overrepresented in positions of competence and authority because as a group, they have a higher mean IQ. It's plainly obvious that Peterson's decree that any individual who brings up the topic of genetic differences between groups of humans should be ejected from and barred from public debate applies only to whites as does ultimately his decree that tribalism is the height of evil. So you'll notice these sculptures behind me, they're made by an artist, a native artist named Charles Joseph and Charles Joseph is a friend and now a brother of mine as I've been inducted into their tribal group. Endgame Jordan Peterson's endgame is one in the same as the globalist machine. Peterson is working at the psychological level to inoculate a generation of young white males against racial awareness, just as whites are on the cusp of becoming a minority group in their own countries the world over. While our enemies are waging war against us in a ruthless, calculated and organized manner, Peterson is telling us that we must be individualistic and atomized. He has created an insidious political ideology and is delivering it with a spoonful of sugar to an audience who is hungry for an answer to the destruction that is being wrought upon them, the very destruction that Peterson is working to prevent them from effectively opposing. And he is doing all of this for 30 pieces of silver. I make $80,000 a month on Patreon. My book is selling about 20,000 copies a week. I have royalties that probably amount to something approximating a dollar 50 on each of those. The tours, garner about $35,000 to $50,000 an evening. I have a business that's generating, I don't know, something in the neighborhood of $200,000 a month for me personally. There are some other smaller sources of income than that. You are making a lot of money. Yes. Out of this. I certainly am. And so are a lot of other people. I'm not ashamed of making money. It's very hard to make money. You