WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

Listen to how little they understand about anything at all, whose entire frame is social proof.

It's like the humans aren't even talking, it's the ideology talking directly through them.

Listen to how little they understand about anything at all, whose entire frame is social proof. It's like the humans aren't even talking, it's the ideology talking directly through them.

(post is archived)

[–] 1 pt

There is a lot to critize Dr. Peterson for, but this is an amazing display of an ideology completely owning the vessel that it occupies.

[–] 1 pt

jewden peterson

That kike loving cuck can die already.

[–] 1 pt

Now watch nathan j. robinson + majority report use femal social warfare tactings / jew mental tricks to parse Dr. Peterson:

Utterly fascinating. This is what lawyers do. Zoom in and first take appart a statement into constiutent abstract components, examine and put them back together to say something the original author never meant. Also, they are shifting the context around Petersons statements in awsomely stupid ways to make it sound like they found Peterson out.

Of course, Sam Seder is a jew. We have way more enemies than merely jews, but it is really intersting to watch how they work. Think about this: their methodologies and modus operandi are almost identical from one generation to the next. Yet, there are no classes or coursework where they teach this to their own.

Uncanny.

[–] 0 pt

>Yet, there are no classes or coursework where they teach this to their own. Uncanny.

You have never heard of the Talmud? Get outa here!

[–] 0 pt (edited )

What the hell, almost all the critiques of Peterson are from jews:

It's all the same techniques and narratives. Holy shit. This is pure Talmudic type of techniques of argument, reasoning and parsing. Oh, and outright lies, absolutely galling lies told with that self assured smile.

Really I shouldn't be amazed. I'm just amazed by how brazen and REALLY SIMPLE the techniques are. There is utterly nothing of sophistication in the techniques, it's pure "hutzpah". It is the intellectual version of the Gypsy grift of sending kids out to beg to prey on the victims emotions.

[–] 0 pt

Inb4 hate on JP for him not embracing White Supremacy..

He's clearly not for everybody, but anybody willing to listen, could possibly learn valuable lessons about "tidying your room and getting your house in order, before trying to rearrange society as a whole..".

[–] 0 pt

and werewolf: i get your points.

JP's no "guru" to me, nor should he be to anybody and i see no evidence that ever sought to be one..

I believe it's obvious that he never attempted to capitalize on his popularity and become a person of political power or spearheading any movement.

His usefullness (to me and possibly to anybody with the mental capacity and willingness) is in the development, rebuilding and/or confirmation of the id; the "get your house in order.." and in explaining the relatively complex mechanisms of co-existence in a community (reality, really) or possibly; how you may become an army of one, that may be competent enough to influence others, with a clear concience.

Edit: oops, replied to myself..

[–] 0 pt

And they'll also learn to not think about their race and his audience is almost exclusively White men. He's great at keeping them on the plantation.

[–] 0 pt

Absolutely, he introduced a lot of people to silos of specialized study that you can take further and gain more skills.

My first reading of Peterson was that he stopped short of saying the obvious about the JQ and white self determinism and how to think about those things in evolutionary, psychological, mythological and social contexts was that he took the subject as far as he possibly could and stood on the razors edge and no further.

In other words, he told a set of stories that raised important flags in interesting ways and pointed in the direction of Jung, Solzhenitsyn and that direction and said, you do the rest, I can go no further.

I am still sympathetic to that reading of his path, but I am suspicious of him mostly because other people are. He keeps on talking about how the work that he did was to de-radicalize young men on the right because he saw the problems that will arise again as the left dislocates young white men from their ancestral inheritence but I have never seen any evidence of anything he said as de-radicalizing at all.