Jordan Peterson, controlled opposition

Jordan Peterson is on our side of the Culture War:

  • anti-political correctness
  • anti-identity politics
  • biological sex roles and traditional gender roles
  • meritocracy and meritocratic hierarchy
  • personal freedom and responsibility
  • angers our enemies

But this man is not an ally. The enemy of our enemy is not always our friend.

It is good that my enemy’s enemy is successful against my enemy, but much though I wish my enemy’s enemy was my friend and ally, I don’t get to choose.

Jordan Peterson is reaching a huge audience, and that is good news for us … but …

On sex roles there is a big difference between Peterson’s directive: “clean up your room” and my observation: “I must dance, and women call the tune.”

And similarly, he omits the truth on NAMs and Jews, crediting American Jews with an average IQ high enough to entirely explain their disproportionate influence, and completely failing to notice that whites are second class citizens to NAMs. He advocates hierarchy based on meritocracy, and conspicuously fails to notice major deviations from meritocracy.

Official truth is that Jordan Peterson’s target market is a tiny, ignored, underserved niche market … but it is, in fact half the population

Mass market service of half the market, which is what Jordan Peterson is supplying, does not go all the way with the whole truth even thought that is what the customers hope to receive, because, surrounded by a barrage of propaganda, people like to hear truth that is compatible as possible with that barrage of propaganda.

Mostly they are content with the same old propaganda, minus the spitting at them and projectile vomiting over them.

I have tried lots of different personas on women. I know what persona works. Heartiste is correct, and indeed understates his case. Playing a really bad man, even worse than that recommended by Heartiste, works best. I can play that character convincingly because I have monsters inside, and I let them out to play, but I am not really that person. I must dance, and women call the tune. The solution is not to clean up your room, but to project the masculinity of the vicious psychopathic criminal, combined with the assets and material lifestyle of the respectable male, staying out of jail while superficially seeming the kind of man that they would find in jail. Jordan offers fatherless boys the same old blue pill solutions to dealing with women, which result in them living in involuntary celibacy.

Of course insufficient spitting looks to the left like hard core genocidal nazism, so you still get the same enemies. Peterson gets in trouble for saying that commies murdered a hundred million or so, and are entirely unrepentant. Jordan Peterson neglects to say that they hunger and thirst to do it all again, and that Democrats are on the same course, a course headed directly for the Red Terror of 1794, which eighteenth century horror prefigured the enormously larger mass murders of the twentieth century, and the extraordinary increase in war, state violence, and private criminal violence that we have seen starting with the French Revolution.

For women to reproduce successfully, they have to be under male authority, and in the modern world, they look for that authority and do not find it.

Female behavior, their attraction to very bad men, makes total sense from the point of view of evolutionary psychology when you reflect that the barista with an advanced degree in women’s studies and one hundred thousand dollars in college debt will probably become a cat lady, but if Islamic State was militarily victorious, and auctioned her off naked and in chains at public auction, would probably have seven children and twenty grandchildren. It also makes total sense according to curse of Eve: “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”.

In order that we can make men into sheep dogs rather than wolves, have to make women into property. For men to become sheep dogs, women must become sheep.

Jordan Peterson is pushing a new religion. Any new religion is going to be an improvement on progressivism, which hates us, and which is erasing our past and destroying our future, but his proposed religions lacks key elements of Christianity that made western civilization possible: The Trinity gives us a God who is both big and small. A god who, unlike Odin, is big enough to offer hope, and who simultaneously makes himself small (turning a blind eye in Eden to allow us to steal the knowledge of Good and Evil, and taking on mortality and death) to reach out to mankind, to allow room in the universe for more than one being with free will, choice, and responsibility for choices. The God too big problem prevents Muslims and Orthodox Jews from doing science and keeping promises, and the God too small problem let Odin worshipers be conquered by Christians. The gods of Jungian paganism, which is what Jordan Peterson is pushing, are too small to give us strength. Invoking the Christian God at mealtime grace gives fathers authority over their families. There is no Jungian equivalent, and there does not seem to have been a Norse equivalent.

Should Jordan Peterson’s religion succeed, the immediate threat to us of enemies in charge of us who wish our destruction will have been turned aside, but Jordan’s religion would not allow western science and empire to recover, nor allow white and east Asian fertility rates to recover to replacement. Christianity permits a culture of keeping promises and speaking truth, to which other religions are apt to be inimical.

With the collapse of truth speaking, science has collapsed, resulting in the replication crisis. Drug companies in the west are giving up on developing new drugs because of the replication crisis. Nobody trusts their research, and they should not trust anyone else’s research.

The Mohammedan says he will do such and such “God Willing” and then does not do it, while the Jew says he will do such and such, and then finds a novel and surprising meaning for his words and yours. Today’s Conservative Mohammedans and Orthodox Jews, whose fathers are armed with a very big God, are doing a lot better on patriarchal authority than today’s Christians, hence their fertility rate, but eighteenth century Christians did equally well, while at the same time giving us science, technology, industrialization, and empire. We are not going to recover western civilization without an official belief system substantially similar to theirs, to theocratic Anglican state Christianity as it existed from 1660 to about 1810.

Comment: I’d say the Christian God is too big for science because Muh Miracles (c.f. Baruch de Spinoza), and too small for morality because Muh Divine Nature (c.f. William of Ockam). Anyway, I’ll remind you all, hell is eternal…


Jordan Peterson: NOT Alt-Right

By Jonathon Van Maren

Many of you have probably already heard the story of the teaching assistant at Wilfred Laurier University who was sanctioned earlier this month for daring to show her class a video featuring part of a debate—because that debate included University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan B. Peterson. Her outraged supervisor, after comparing Peterson to Hitler, informed her that Peterson’s position on transgender pronouns—he won’t use them and opposes coerced speech—made him “transphobic.” But there was one particularly stupid facet of this story that stood out to me: One professor warned the chastised assistant that Peterson is “highly involved with the alt-right.”

I’ve been noticing this crop up a lot more often lately—media outlets casually referring to Peterson as “alt-right,” a descriptor that is both asinine and dangerous. Dangerous, because the casual application of a term that has come to be synonymous with neo-Nazi to anyone that dissents from the ever-shifting dogmas of post-modernism will gut the term of any meaning and actually assist in normalizing genuine alt-right figures like Richard Spencer. I would have thought the Left learned their lesson when they realized that terms like “racist” were becoming utterly impotent through overuse and their willingness to smear ideological opponents at will. (As one conservative columnist wryly it, “A racist is someone winning an argument with a liberal.”)

But calling Jordan Peterson “alt-right” is also asinine because ironically, he is actually a very effective antidote to the alt-right. The ideologues of the alt-right essentially prey on young white men who are often frustrated, unsuccessful, and upset with a society that has purged many of the jobs that men once performed. The alt-right tells these young men that their failures are not their fault—rather, these failures can be laid at the feet of the Chinese globalists, or brown immigrants, or Jewish capitalists. The alt-right takes frustration and turns it into toxic, racially-charged resentment.

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson does precisely the opposite. Rather than feeding into the resentment of men who feel like useless failures, he tells them to grow up and become men. He tells them to quit porn, to date with the intention to marry, to control their impulses, get skills, and get a job. He tells them to stop whining and make something of themselves, and by the tens of thousands, they are actually listening to him. He has become, as one writer put it over at the National Review, “YouTube’s Father Figure”—a generation of young men who grew up without fathers in the home to tell them how to sort themselves out are now going to Peterson for the guidance they craved.

So not only is Peterson not a member of the alt-right, his work is robbing the alt-right of adherents. Lazy ideologues in the media need to stop throwing this term around, and they need to stop using it as a club to beat anyone they disagree with, or they will render it meaningless. And when they do that, they will perhaps realize that it was not Peterson who was providing cover for the alt-right. By using it as a lazy smear, and by lumping people like Peterson into the same category as men like Richard Spencer, they will have done more to mainstream the alt-right than anyone else.

Comment: I agree that Jordan Peterson is not Alt-Right. My brother likes him, and that is a bad sign…

False Prophet

First off, I know how pretentious it is to start a title with “On.” But when the subject matter is Prof Peterson, it seems appropriate…

Secondly, I do not believe that he is a Nazi or a facist.  Let me repeat that, I DO NOT believe JP is a Nazi or Facist.  In case you weren’t listening, I DO NOT believe he is a Nazi or a facist…

Thirdly, since most of my exposure to him has been Youtube, this would turn into an extraordinairily dense thing if I tried to cite everyting, so this might be a bit sloppy.  Commenters, feel free to drop videos or appropriate articles in the comments….

Okay, with that outta the way, let’s begin…

I stumbled onto JP when some Miggytoes whined that “public intellectual” Jordan Peterson had “slandered us.”  I stumbled on to Joe “Where’s the beef, I’m mean Roids” Rogan when I saw part of an interview he did with Metallica’s singer.  I later watched Roid breath’s interview with JP.  JP was extraordinairly well spoken.  He was like a great salesman who practiced rebutals to every objection he could think of.  When he couldn’t think of a rebutal, he kept talking anyways and his words were so polished they seemed like truth.  He seemed like a guy on a whole other level.  I believe that he had studied “rhetoric” as he studied philosophy.  Now, remember, just a little while back, we saw the overly educated and pompous Hugo Schwyzer talk over MRA’s and attempt to demolish their points because they missued an apostrophe all while the Skeezer was using “feminism” to get laid and bash low status men.  So, even if a Peterson critic “speaks the truth,” his sophistry is most likely far more developed and might appear to be more accurate because it sounds better…

Now, it appears that Jordan Peterson was trying to attain fame for a few years now.  He had mentioned “an interest in politics.”  He had gone on public televsion with his daughter discussing her dietary issues and his depression.  And, he had begun filming his lectures and uploading to Youtube.  Let me spell this out for you.  The reason why this is relevant is that he wasn’t an obscure academic who merely wanted to do research and lecture and now felt compelled to issue dire warnings because he though Bill C 16was going to lead us to a dark age where SJW’s with rainbow colored battons and pink swastika’s walk goose step and throw people into Siberian Gulags because they accidently said there were only 98 genders instead of 173.965.  Does Jordan Peterson believe we are entering a dark ages in regards for free speech and feel moraly compelled to  steer Western Civilization way from this odius fate? Is Peterson shrewed and saavy and have his finger on the pulse of Western Culture?  Did he observe Bre-exit and Trumpism and realize that he “now had a product” to sell?  I am not a mind reader.  I do not know what he is thinking and even acknowledge the possibility that he is doing this on a subconcious level and he himself may not know exactly what he is thinking.  (Though his training should make him more self-aware than most.)

Jordan Peterson’s most damning critique comes from a friend and colleque who helped build his academic career:

“Jordan’s first high-profile public battle, and for many people their introduction to the man, followed his declaration that he would not comply with Bill C-16, an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act extending its protections to include gender identity and expression. He would refuse to refer to students using gender neutral pronouns. He then upped the stakes by claiming that, for this transgression, he could be sent to jail.

I have a trans daughter, but that was hardly an issue compared to what I felt was a betrayal of my trust and confidence in him. It was an abuse of the trust that comes with his professorial position, which I had fought for, to have misrepresented gender science by dismissing the evidence that the relationship of gender to biology is not absolute and to have made the claim that he could be jailed when, at worst, he could be fined.

In his defence, Jordan told me if he refused to pay the fine he could go to jail. That is not the same as being jailed for what you say, but it did ennoble him as a would-be martyr in the defence of free speech. He was a true free speech “warrior” who was willing to sacrifice and run roughshod over his students to make a point. He could have spared his students and chosen to sidestep the issue and refer to them by their names. And if this was truly a matter of free speech he could have challenged the Human Rights Act, off-campus and much earlier, by openly using language offensive to any of the already-protected groups on that list.”

In this same article, there may be “ethical concerns” on how JP conducted research studies.  Now listen, I get it, no one likes red-tape.  I remember working in a sales organization where I was initially told to “bring in deals.”  As the company grew there was a “management layer” that didn’t do things to help close deals and also pressure to work with outside resellers rather than selling direct to organizations.  All of this meant (far) more work for significantly lower commissions.  I remember coming accross Youtube video where JP discussed giving full grown men copius amounts of alcohol to measure how the sons of alcoholic fathers reacted.  He mentioned having difficulty with the research as he was told that he had to keep the research subjects the entire time while they were intoxicated and some became belligerent.  Imagine that, I didn’t need a psycology degree to tell ya that might happen.  I think he mentioned the study was eventually shut down.  But of course there could be liability issues deary.  Can you imagine sending drunk guys out into the wild so to speak?  They might get in a fight with their roomate or spouse.  They might even get jumped as they stumble home.  On another note, experiments that were conducted many years ago such as the Millgram experiment couldn’t be ethically conducted these days.

Again from the same article:

“He was, however, more eccentric than I had expected. He was a maverick. Even though there was nothing contentious about his research, he objected in principle to having it reviewed by the university research ethics committee, whose purpose is to protect the safety and well-being of experiment subjects.

He requested a meeting with the committee. I was not present but was told that he had questioned the authority and expertise of the committee members, had insisted that he alone was in a position to judge whether his research was ethical and that, in any case, he was fully capable of making such decisions himself. He was impervious to the fact that subjects in psychological research had been, on occasion, subjected to bad experiences, and also to the fact that both the Canadian and United States governments had made these reviews mandatory. What was he doing! I managed to make light of this to myself by attributing it to his unbridled energy and fierce independence, which were, in many other ways, virtues. That was a mistake.”

Now to be fair, I don’t know if this was on his research for alcohol or another set of studies.  And again, I can understand how he wouldn’t like red-tape.  But, his “bucking the system” may be a lapse in ethics.

In my opinion, he talks over people but listens carefully.  How is this so? Remember his interview with James Damore? In my opinion, he talked over Damore and even twisted Damore’s arm to fit his agenda.  I do not have a wholesale agreement with Damore, but it looks to me that he has been used as a puppet by many on the “right.”

Now as far as “listening carefully,” this may be the most daming thing I say about Peterson and also the most difficult to prove.  I believe he carefully reads the comments on his Youtube video. And as he has said of facist leaders, he crafts his messages on which brings the most response from his audience.  (Again, I am not claiming he is a nazi but I believe he is “listening to the applause” of his audience to feed them more of what they crave.)

He also rambles on about “dominance hierarchies” and seems to suggest that not only are they natural but also produce great outcomes because the “cream rises to the top.” He was on the Jock Willnick podcast awhile back and interstingly enough on another Jocko podcast, Jocko talked about rising in rank in the military, a very hierarchical organization.
Jocko said guys would see him “go after it/get on it” aggressively but what they didn’t see was the political schmoozing.  That is going to lunch with the commanding officer, saying the right things and “massaging” him for a promotion.  Jocko, in my mind, acknowledged that this was highly political rather than a meritocracy.    Imagine if one of his fan boys works hard in school and tries to become a professor.  But he falls short of the tenure track and starves as an adjunct professor (linked to Jezebel of all places because hipster irony y’all.) He seems to dismiss sometimes legitimate critiques of dominance hierarchies because they come from “the left.”  (And remember, guys, he is a winner as a tenured professor in this system.)

Now this brings us to the famous “clean your room” trope.  Now granted, when I did my spring cleaning, I was happy to find a few concert t-shirts that I thought were forever lost and a Thin Lizzy DVD.  This seems like sensible advice the way that the manuresphere’s advice to lift weights seems sensible.  Nothing wrong with cleaning your room and organizing your life.  However, noted geniuses such as Albert Einstein were known to be messy.  It seems like  JP is prioritizing “orderliness” and “concientiousness” above traits like creativity and openess to experience.  And look at complaints from the right and alt-right that things like movies, art and music are “controlled” by the left.  Well, when you have guys like Captain Capitalism shouting that real men “get STEM degree’s” and art and music is “sissy, faggot” shit, your movement has essentially pushed those guys outta your camp.  They are gonna go to the left or they are gonna ignore you guys.  The manosphere essentially pushed out the creative class and it looks like JP and his fanboys might do the same.

Comment: Is Jordan Peterson related to Daniel Peterson, the professional conlanger?!


IN THE FIRST FULFILLMENT, the globalists will pit “the American Antichrist and his evil unilateral / unipolar NWO” against “the Russian Christ and his benevolent multilateral / multipolar NWO.”

The Russian Christ will of course be played by Vladimir Putin, and that’s why you’ve heard so much in the controlled alternative media about Putin being “a good Christian who has stood up against the Western Satanists and their NWO.” And the Western Antichrist is currently slated to be played by Trump’s replacement – most likely Mike Pence – after Trump is assassinated or otherwise removed from office by the supposed “Deep State” – a move which is IMMINENT.

During the upcoming Third World War conflict in Korea, the Middle East, and Ukraine, Putin will defeat the West and overhaul the “Western-dominated” UN into the multilateral / multipolar NWO. And to convince people that they’re going through something supernatural, the globalists will be putting on a grand show involving fake assassinations, fake resurrections, and fake extraterrestrials – all made possible by Hollywood magic, sequestered technology, and a near limitless budget.

At the end of this first fulfillment, most will be convinced that Putin is the Jewish and Christian Messiah, and that the “new, reformed” UN / NWO is his democratic kingdom.

IN THE SECOND FULFILLMENT, Putin’s NWO will turn quite ugly about 3.5 years after it’s launched, and it will become clear to everyone that they’ve been “deceived by Satan” into accepting the Final Antichrist in Christ’s place. After 3.5 more years of “great tribulation,” Putin will lead his UN army and ET pals against a second group of arriving beings, the “real Jesus” and his angels.

At the end of this second fulfillment, the globalists are expecting everyone to buy in and accept the “real Jesus” they presented. And it is through this phony figurehead Jesus that they hope to rule over us like gods in a post-democratic world they own lock, stock, and barrel.

With this overview in mind, you might be wondering how I arrived at this narrative. To find out, continue reading the rest of this page. It will take you on the journey of discovery I experienced as I began looking into the globalists’ religious agenda. Their plans were originally scheduled to come to fruition in 2016, so that’s why you’ll see references to that year…

Comment: They must remember that Hell is eternal…


The agecuck (you don’t have to capitalize the word. Probably better that you don’t capitalize it) is a subset of and variation on the idea of the Blue Knight, and it means an individual who is specifically obsessed with ‘protecting’ people below a certain age fron this thing or from that thing. The age which he (or she) deems to be the “turning point” from requiring special protection to not requiring special protection is always chosen arbitrarily.

For example, on 4chan’s /b/ there are people who go around saying “how dare you be sexually attracted to [X], pervert? She is just 14!” and so on.

This is a specific form of Blue Knightism which I call agecuckery or agecucking. The agecuck attaches a great deal of emotional/ideological significance to whatever arbitrarily chosen age he sees as the ‘right’ threshold, and will autistically insist that things that are okay at age X+2 and even at age X+1 are absolutely horrible and monstrous and unthinkable at age X.

For example, if the agecuck thinks that sex at the age of 14 is “ZOMG HORROR!!!1!” (despite the statistical reality that plenty of 14-year-olds are passionately doing it) then he will simply not tolerate the idea that men are sexually attracted to 14-year-olds; yet he may be surprisingly tolerant of sexuality with 15 y/os and 16 y/os, as if there is such a great difference between “X” (14) and “X+2” (16).

An agecuck may put the threshold at 13 or at 20, the point is that any suggestion of sexuality (and, honestly, it’s always about sexuality) below this arbitrarily chosen age will result in the agecuck flipping-out like crazy against the person who suggested it.

“Agecuck,” moreso than “Blue Knight,” is meant as an insult. Nobody (or, to be precise, no man) wants to be called a “cuck” of any kind. It is meant to be offensive and to be aggressively used against our enemies.

It sounds a lot like “wagecuck,” an insult common on the chans. That’s probably what got me to invent this term, in fact.

You can technically substitute “agefag” for “agecuck,” but I think that “agecuck” stings much sharper, because it implies not just that you are engaging in a lame behavior (fagging) but that you are compromising on something essential from a position of weakness (cucking).

Why is an agecuck an agecuck? Because he is not red-pilled, or not red-pilled enough, about the issue of age. He is blue-pilled i.e. deluded about the subject. He lacks age-realism. That results in him cucking out on his own interests as a man. The legalization and normalization of male sexuality is in the rational self-interest of all men, but agecucks autistically insist that “oh no, at age X it is just unfathomable and unpalatable, because blah-blah-blah.” That results in us men collectively losing our sexual liberty, becoming the slaves of a sex-hostile age-centered worldview.

When one of our enemies speaks broadly about young people, he should simply be called a “Blue Knight.”

But when he starts autistically arguing that sex is horrible at age X while being perfectly acceptable at age X+1 or X+2, or that attraction to those aged X is perverted but attraction to those aged X+1 or X+2 is absolutely normal, then is the time to call him an “agecuck” and to describe the thing that he is doing as “agecucking.”

Again — to repeat the obvious — an agecuck may be fixated on any age. He could be fixated with 13 (possibly because he himself secretely desires to bang 13-year-olds) or with 15 (ditto) or with 17.

An agecuck will often use the word “underage” to describe those whom he deems to be below his arbitrarily chosen threshold for participation in sexual things. If he is obsessed with defending the AOC (which is 16 in many places) then he will rage against those who show attraction to 15-year-olds. If he is obsessed with defending anti-CP legislation, he will vociferously denounce attraction to 17-year-olds. That’s the gist of agecuckery.

Magyars sold directly to Moors

The Ghent University has been running a training course for about ten years, mainly intended for alumni and the elderly. This year, the programme featured lectures by Professor em. John Everaert on the theme of “Human trafficking: Europe and the thread of shame”. The first lecture titled “Medieval Europe reorients its slave trade” was held on November 7. Dr. Rudi Roth was dismayed when he read in the first slide of the presentation: “slave traders / slave-brokers: rather Jews (polyglot)” and by Prof Everaert’s oral assertion that the trade was conducted “mostly by Jews”.

Which sources? When asked about the sources he drew on to make his claim, Professor Everaert referred to the work of his predecessor, Professor Charles Verlinden (1907-1996), a Belgian historian and professor at Ghent University. In 1935, Verlinden developped this hypothesis in a first publication that has been passed on uncritically ever since. Belgian historian Henri Pirenne also underlined the important role played by Jews in trade and in the slave trade during the early Middle-Ages (7th to 11th century). So did the acclaimed French historian, Maurice Lombard.

Dr. Roth examined their works and compared them with newer academic publications. They invalidate the theory of Verlinden because it is not based on hard facts but on erroneous assumptions. Historians such as Verlinden were not rigorous when dealing with sources and mixed information from various sources. Very simply put, saying that “Jews had slaves” and that “Jews were merchants” became “Jews were slave traders”. Historical truth was distorted, and historians such as Pirenne and others, adopted this view.

Everaert misses the point The proof that Everaert’s explanation is not based on facts is apparent from research by the Austian-Israeli historian Eliyahu Ashtor, but especially from the articles by Professor Michaël Toch of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, the leading authority in the field of the Middle-Ages and Judaism in Europe. We asked for his opinion on the expressions “rather Jews” and “mostly by Jews” used by Everaert. Professor Toch responded there is no doubt that both are wrong: “This is as wrong as it can be, and that is not an exaggeration because it is simple: these allegations are wrong for a lot of reasons The sources and arguments against this thesis are clearly explained in my book (1), but also in other studies, for example in Atti della XXXI Settimana di Studi(2).

The specific and erroneous argument, that the slave trade was carried out “mostly by Jews” can be primarily be explained by underlying and passive antisemitic prejudices. The fact that the slave trade was mainly a non-Jewish practice was deliberately brushed aside or even concealed. This anti-Jewish claim was later adopted by a number of historians.

Professor Jean-Pierre Devroey (ULB) also rejects Charles Verlinden’s approach for similar reasons. Professor Everaert was contacted by J.A. and maintained obstinately that his theory is right even though it is not based on facts and disputed by other historians.

1. The Economic History of European Jews. Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages, 2013, pp. 178-190.
2. Michael Toch, Jews and Commerce: Modern Fancies and Medieval Realities, in: S. Cavaciocchi (ed.), Il ruolo economico delle minoranze in Europe. Secc. XIII-XVIII, Attidella XXXI Settimana di Studi, Istituto Francesco Datini, Prato, Firenze 2000, 43-58.

Comment: And so did Vikings. There were NO Jewish intermediaries!!!