I’m a fan of Peterson’s work, but his answers in relation to third world migration, migrant fertility, fertility rates among native European populations and taxation for the sake of maintaining foreign populations is much the same as other classical liberals: don’t play identity politics, instead reach other ethnic groups through principles; if you’re concerned about native fertility rates, have more children, and if you have a problem with taxation take political action to challenge this.
These answers aren’t sufficient to the challenge we have before us. Firstly, some parts of these non-white populations can be reached through principles, for example Black Republicans, but this is a tiny minority, less than 20%, possibly due to the lower average IQ of these non-white groups. There is a reason the left has weaponised these populations through identity politics and not leftist principles concerning the bourgeoisie; because these minority groups response to identity more readily than whites. They play identity politics by default and conservative efforts to reach them through principles (such as trying to gain the latino vote) have failed. This tactic doesn’t work and will simply result in our being outnumbered while preaching principles that non-white populations for the most part don’t give a damn about.
Regarding taking political action to have a conversation regarding migration, this conversation has been suppressed for several decades now, large portions of western populations have wanted restrictions but have been told that such opinions are racist and as such have been silenced. Is it the case that if we have been shut out of the conversation we must take a more direct approach?
Regarding migrant fertility, taxation to pay for this fertility, and the extreme difficulty of native populations having children, the discussion on migrant fertility and taxes is still suppressed as being ‘extreme right’, and only a complete spiritual revolution of white populations toward family over wealth will make this easier.
The time for classical liberalism has passed; it failed. It encouraged fracturing and intense competition for power in the native population and as a result foreign political auxiliaries were brought in and are now replacing us.
This is why I’m basically a white nationalist: to have the society we want, where white people aren’t victimized minorities and where we can actually aspire to epic deeds such as space travel, we must encourage identity politics among whites, and deprive non-white migrants and settled populations of the financial support to grow, and expel these populations almost totally, if not totally, from our territories. Only then will our future be secure. It sucks, because it will require the extreme measures that a thoughtful person such as Peterson abhors, but the alternative is the same thing happening to us, except we have no where to return to, we will simply be exterminated.
Reality Calls
Yes, I get the impression that Professor Peterson doesn’t care if whites are displaced off the face of the planet. He is almost suggesting that we accept our fate gracefully, on principle.
The thing is, I don’t think those values or principles that we hold will continue to exist if we cease to. After all, principles and values are only tools by which to shape a society worth living in.
So it’s a bit of a dilemma. Do we value the tools more than we value those who have the ability to use and benefit from them? Seems like a backward conclusion to come to to me.
reaktionär svensk
Mr Petersons work is brilliant. But he’s himself admitted that his intellectual framework is primarly (Deeply. His own words.) religious and that he isnt political in any way. And honestly I can respect that. He still does really productive work.
In this conversation he did show that he isnt in tune with politics at all to be honest.
For example when he said that conservatives in the west have to overcome their group preference and reach out to immigrants on basis of civic principles he’s preaching to the choir.
Conservatives have been doing this for decades and it has proved to be completely impotent. Conservatives in the west frown at the idea of identifying themselves with their race or ethnicity just as much as liberals.
Neither have conservatives in the west pushed for restricted immigration.
But it doesn’t make any difference. It just doesnt work. The left has still a more appealing narrative for immigrants and minority groups.
There’s more I could object to what he said but I’ll just conclude that I still appreciate that he came on to the show and adress the concerns of the alt right, even though I wasnt really convinced by his arguments he’s willing to go far further than most people in his position/stature.
SpiritualBBQ
I definitely agree about Peterson’s willingness to engage with the Alt-right. Recently, I’ve been thinking a lot about how to marry the important warnings concerning totalitarianism and love of liberty that Peterson and Molynuex etc give, with our need for racial defense. It’s a tricky issue, but the more these guys acknowledge our discussion as legitimate and necessary and engage with us, the closer we can get to an answer to our problems.
Yes it is a failure to understand short and long term strategies.
Though some immigrant populations would be ‘conservative’ in social and familial structure, they see White Western conservatives as being degenerate as Leftists.
Short term strategy of landing and becoming established in the new land says the Left is a better bet. Doesn’t question their culture, writes cheques.
Long term each conservative ‘other’ would seek a society where their particular conservative values and culture were dominant.
SpiritualBBQ
I read an essay of G. K. Chesterton recently (‘On Domestic Servants’) where he pointed out the modern (for him) malaise of putting the trivial before the important, so for example, valuing GDP rather than the actual well-being of a population, and here it is again, focusing on the relatively trivial (the tools of principles) rather than the important (the European populations those tools were developed to help). I feel the Alt-right is a switch back to the important; race, culture, environment and destiny.
I’ve listened to the whole interview very carefully. At no point he is even close to it. It’s just that his focus is on something different. With all the respect (I love what you are doing) I think you are projecting here.
pjm77
A great point about examining ourselves first. It’s sorely missing from the alt-right discourse at the moment.
Matthew Fletcher
This obsessive focus on the individual, which is the backbone of the modern right and liberalism, is crippling. I would say that it has perhaps done more to destroy the West than Marxism, or at least that it is part of the same dissolutive process.
Whilst it is important for individuals to take a degree of self-ownership, self-monitor, and strive to improve themselves, the reality is that this is a capability limited to only a few possessing high IQ, extremely high levels of self-control, or natural aptitudes for such traits. The majority of humanity rely on others to help them and guide them to live good lives. The individual is formed through a matrix of relations with others, groups. The more solitary the individual, the more cut off, the more lacking in identity, the more resentment will grow and the more they will move towards evil. Ie. the more groups break down, the more individuals break down in tandem. The best way for individuals to fix their lives and make progress toward the ‘good’ has long been recognised to be communal groups, whether religious such as the church or otherwise such as voluntary groups, hobbies, part-time work, etc. Addicts, for example, attend group therapy and get assigned buddies.
And above all of these groups, at the top of the pyramid, whether we like it or not, we as europeans belong to an overarching, genetic group that effects everything about us, the europeans, or whites. As he points out being a member of the white group has given each of us strength in the world, directly through our biology or indirectly through our societies, but we are indebted too, and we hold responsibilities too to the group. To deny these responsibilities, which has been occurring for some time with low birthrates, giving away territory, wilful blindness to race, etc., in the short term seems harmless. However, it is our children’s children who will feel the repercussions, if we have any.
Evola writes on the liberal obsession with individualism that they are in desperate search for “a polemic against collectivism, mechanisation, standardisation, and soullessness of modern existence.”
“The concept of the individual is that of an abstract, formless, numerical unity. As such, the individual has no quality of its own, hence nothing that really distinguishes it. Considered simply as individuals, one can assume that all men and women are equal, so that we can ascribe equal rights and responsibilities to them and presumably equal “dignity” as “human beings” (the concept of “human being” is only a dignified version of that of the individual). In social terms, this defines the existential level proper to “natural rights”, liberalism, individualism, and absolute democracy. One of the principal and most apparent aspects of modern decadence refers, in fact, to the advent of individualism as a consequence of the collapse and destruction of the former organic and traditionally hierarchical structures, which have been replaced primarily by the atomic multiplicity of individuals in the world of quantity, that is to say the masses.
The “defence of the personality” appears insignificant and absurd when measured on any individual basis. It makes no sense to position oneself against the world of the masses and of quantity without realising that it is individualism itself that has led to it, in the course of one of those processes of “liberation” that historically have ended by by taking the opposite direction. In our epoch this process has already had irreversible consequences.”
Evola also write on the notion of “being oneself”:
“It is clear that the rule of being oneself implies that one can speak of a “proper nature” for everyone, whatever it may be, as something well defined and recognisable. But this is problematic, especially at the present time. It may have been less difficult in societies that did not know individualism, in traditional societies organised along groups and castes where the factors of heredity, birth, and environment favoured a high degree of internal unity and the differentiation of types, and where the natural articulations were reinforced and nurtured by customer, ethics, laws, and sometimes even by no less differentiated forms. All this has long ceased to exist for modern Western man, and has long been “superseded” along the road of “liberty”; thus the average modern man is changeable, unstable, devoid of any real form. The Pauline and Faustian lament, “two souls, alas, live in my breast,” is already an optimistic assumption; all too many have to admit, like a typical character in Hesse, that they have a multitude of souls! …One can see now how problematic is the very point that has hitherto seemed fixed: fidelity to oneself, the absolute, autonomous law based on one’s own “being”, when it is formulated in general and abstract terms. Everything is subject to debate – a situation accurately exemplified by characters in Dostoyevsky, like Raskolnikov or Stavrogin. At the moment when they are thrown back on their own naked will, trying to prove it to themselves with an absolute action, they collapse; they collapse precisely because they are divided beings, because they are deluded concerning their true nature and their real strength. Their freedom is turned against them and destroys them; they fail at the very point at which they should have reaffirmed themselves – in their depths they find nothing to sustain them and carry them forward. We recall the words of Stavrogin’s testament: “I have tested my strength everywhere, as you advised me to do in order to know myself… What I have never seen, and still do not see, is what I should apply my strength to. My desires lack the energy; they cannot drive me. One can cross a river on a log, but not on a splinter.”
– Extracts are from Ride the Tiger, “Being Oneself” & “The Dual Aspect of Anonymity”
Jotunn Dovregubben
I appreciate Tara’s gentle interview style but I wish she got more time to put forth more Alt-Right points to Peterson. His responses were interesting but unsatisfactory.
There is a level of genetic competition at work here. By allowing a one-way gene flow into our borders it is simply inevitable that we colour our own gene-pool until it ceases to exist as it presently does. Foreign males, conscious of it or not, represent a genetic conquest of our people and will seek to mate with White women as men are biologically programmed to assert their genetic spread.
The deck is stacked against us as Whites in the Western world, we have lost our exclusive territory, we are psychologically demoralized and now embrace a negative self identity and our women in most cases have been radicalized against us.
One can only assume that such a situation has been engineered out of the malice of the Left in an genocidal attempt to destroy us. Without our own exclusive institutions (schools, social organizations etc.), I can not foresee a future for us.
Inclusion is an imposition that is forced only on White people, immigrants are encouraged to form exclusive organizations while our traditions, organizations and culture must be universalized. Ballet, Opera and Classical music are “too White” a problem in need of the solution of diversity, yet Chinese opera or a Muslim mosque is never “too ethic” in need of the same solution.
It is difficult not to see malevolence in this situation.
Andrew Interrupted
The West is clearly under a Western Bolshevik occupation.
One suggestion Mike Cernovich made, in the spirit of withdrawing into the forest to join the partisans, is to form “micro-economies”. That is, stealth independent states that use a metals based barter currency and just trade/interact among only the West oriented.
I enjoyed this very much, though as others have said it was a bit unsatisfactory.
I have listened to a good deal of J Peterson’s output over the last while. He is extremely important to we Canadians as he is about as far Right as you can be and still get a place at the table.
But Right is relative. Peterson tends to slide toward radical individualism. He often compares this elevation of the individual against either Left of Right collectivism.
As does Hicks in, ‘Explaining Postmodernism’ (which is excellent btw).
Both men fail to understand the truth that we AltRIghters have grasped as prior to all political, social, psychological and spiritual discussion: Race. They commit the same fallacy of the PoMo Libtard collective, namely that Ideas are real and bodies are unknowable. At least that they are unimportant. What matters is Liberalism and personal psychological awareness. Somehow this will always prove victorious over what ever tyranny if enough ‘people’ adhere to it. Western values are so inherently superlative that they will occupy our lands whether our lands are occupied by westerners or not.
To the contrary of the Liberal Western Civ view; sometimes we have to struggle against our replacement. Sometimes the conditions of our values need to be protected and preserved, our inter tribal values are doomed if we do not maintain the perimeter. (Read Wall)
Thanks to Jordan Peterson for engaging with the Alt-Right and basically tell them straight up that they are playing the wrong game. You Alt-right’ers need to take a good long look in the mirror. Tribalism is the road to hell.
asebino
I agree with you. All you can do is educate yourself, have a family and job, do your best and speak the truth, but harboring resentment keeps a bad cycle going.
Pingback: The #1 Thing You Should Do This Year To Improve Your Health | Reality Calls()